is a comparatively new sub-field in AI, targeted on understanding how neural networks operate by reverse-engineering their inside mechanisms and representations, aiming to translate them into human-understandable algorithms and ideas. That is in distinction to and additional than conventional explainability methods like SHAP and LIME.
SHAP stands for SHapley Additive exPlanations. It computes the contribution of every characteristic to the prediction of the mannequin, domestically and globally, that’s for a single instance in addition to throughout the entire dataset. This permits SHAP for use to find out characteristic significance usually for the use case. LIME, in the meantime, works on a single example-prediction pair the place it perturbs the instance enter and makes use of the perturbations and its outputs to approximate an easier substitute of the black-box mannequin. As such, each of those work at a characteristic stage and provides us some rationalization and heuristic to gauge how every enter into the mannequin impacts its prediction or output.
Alternatively, mechanistic interpretation understands issues at a extra granular stage in that it’s able to offering a pathway of how the stated characteristic is learnt by totally different neurons in several layers within the neural community, and the way that studying evolves over the layers within the community. This makes it adept at tracing paths contained in the community for a selected characteristic and additionally seeing how that characteristic impacts the result.
SHAP and LIME, then, reply the query “which characteristic contributes probably the most to the result?” whereas mechanistic interpretation solutions the query “which neurons activate for which characteristic, and the way does that characteristic evolve and have an effect on the result of the community?“
Since explainability usually is an issue with deeper networks, this sub-field majorly works with deeper fashions just like the transformers. There are a couple of locations the place mechanistic interpretability seems to be at transformers in a different way than the standard manner, one in every of which is multi-head consideration. As we’ll see, this distinction is in reframing the multiplication and concatenation operations as outlined within the “Consideration is All You Want” paper as addition operations which opens an entire vary of latest potentialities.
However first, a recap of the Transformer structure.
Transformer Structure
These are the sizes we work with:
- batch_size B =1;
- sequence size S = 20;
- vocab_size V = 50,000;
- hidden_dims D = 512;
- heads H = 8
Because of this the variety of dimensions within the Q, Okay, V vectors is 512/8 (L) = 64. (In case you don’t bear in mind, an analogy for understanding question, key and worth: The thought is that for a token at a given place (Okay), primarily based on its context (Q) we wish to get alignment (reweighing) to the positions it’s related to (V).)
These are the steps upto the eye computation in a transformer. (The form of tensors is assumed for instance for higher understanding. Numbers in italic characterize the dimension alongside which the matrix is multiplied.)
Step | Operation | Enter 1 Dims (Form) | Enter 2 Dims (Form) | Output Dims (Form) |
1 | N/A | B x S x V (1 x 20 x 50,000) |
N/A | B x S x V (1 x 20 x 50,000) |
2 | Get embeddings | B x S x V (1 x 20 x 50,000) |
V x D (50,000 x 512) |
B x S x D (1 x 20 x 512) |
3 | Add positional embeddings | B x S x D (1 x 20 x 512) |
N/A | B x S x D (1 x 20 x 512) |
4 | Copy embeddings to Q, Okay, V | B x S x D (1 x 20 x 512) |
N/A | B x S x D (1 x 20 x 512) |
5 | Linear remodel for every head H=8 | B x S x D (1 x 20 x 512) |
D x L (512 x 64) |
BxHxSxL (1 x 1 x 20 x 64) |
6 | Scaled Dot Product (Q@Okay’) in every head | BxHxSxL (1 x 1 x 20 x 64) |
(LxSxHxB) (64 x 20 x 1 x 1) |
BxHxSxS (1 x 1 x 20 x 20) |
7 | Scaled Dot Product (Consideration calculation) Q@Okay’V in every head | BxHxSxS (1 x 1 x 20 x 20) |
BxHxSxL (1 x 1 x 20 x 64) |
BxHxSxL (1 x 1 x 20 x 64) |
8 | Concat throughout all heads H=8 | BxHxSxL (1 x 1 x 20 x 64) |
N/A | B x S x D (1 x 20 x 512) |
9 | Linear projection | B x S x D (1 x 20 x 512) |
D x D (512 x 512) |
B x S x D (1 x 20 x 512) |
The desk defined intimately:
- We begin with one enter sentence of a sequence size of 20 that’s one-hot encoded to characterize phrases within the vocabulary current within the sequence. Form (B x S x V): (1 x 20 x 50,000)
- We multiply this enter with the learnable embedding matrix Wₑ of form (V x D) to get the embeddings. Form (B x S x D): (1 x 20 x 512)
- Subsequent a learnable positional encoding matrix of the identical form is added to the embeddings
- The resultant embeddings are then copied to the matrices Q, Okay and V. Q, Okay and V every are cut up and reshaped on the D dimension. Form (B x S x D): (1 x 20 x 512)
- The matrices for Q, Okay and V are every fed to a linear transformation layer that multiplies them with learnable weight matrices every of form (D x L) Wq, Wₖ and Wᵥ, respectively (one copy for every of the H=8 heads). Form (B x H x S x L): (1 x 1 x 20 x 64) the place H=1, as that is the resultant form for every head.
- Subsequent, we compute consideration with Scaled Dot Product consideration the place Q and Okay (transposed) are multiplied first in every head. Form (B x H x S x L) x (L x S x H x B) → (B x H x S x S): (1 x 1 x 20 x 20).
- There’s a scaling and masking step subsequent that I’ve skipped as that isn’t essential in understanding what’s the totally different manner of taking a look at MHA. So, subsequent we multiply QK with V for every head. Form (B x H x S x S) x (B x H x S x L) → (B x H x S x L): (1 x 1 x 20 x 64)
- Concat: Right here, we concatenate the outcomes of consideration from all of the heads on the L dimension to get again a form of (B x S x D) → (1 x 20 x 512)
- This output is as soon as extra linearly projected utilizing yet one more learnable weight matrix Wₒ of form (D x D). Closing form we finish with (B x S x D): (1 x 20 x 512)
Reimagining Multi-Head Consideration

Now, let’s see how the sector of mechanistic interpretation seems to be at this, and we will even see why it’s mathematically equal. On the appropriate within the picture above, you see the module that reimagines multi-head consideration.
As a substitute of concatenating the eye output, we proceed with the multiplication “inside” the heads itself the place now the form of Wₒ is (L x D) and multiply with QK’V of form (B x H x S x L) to get the results of form (B x S x H x D): (1 x 20 x 1 x 512). Then, we sum over the H dimension to once more finish with the form (B x S x D): (1 x 20 x 512).
From the desk above, the final two steps are what adjustments:
Step | Operation | Enter 1 Dims (Form) | Enter 2 Dims (Form) | Output Dims (Form) |
8 | Matrix multiplication in every head H=8 | BxHxSxL (1 x 1 x 20 x 64) |
L x D (64 x 512) |
BxSxHxD (1 x 20 x 1 x 512) |
9 | Sum over heads (H dimension) | BxSxHxD (1 x 20 x 1 x 512) |
N/A | B x S x D (1 x 20 x 512) |
Aspect word: This “summing over” is harking back to how summing over totally different channels occurs in CNNs. In CNNs, every filter operates on the enter, after which we sum the outputs throughout channels. Identical right here — every head might be seen as a channel, and the mannequin learns a weight matrix to map every head’s contribution into the ultimate output house.
However why is the mission + sum mathematically equal to concat + mission? In brief, as a result of the projection weights within the mechanistic perspective are simply sliced variations of the weights within the conventional view (sliced throughout the D dimension and cut up to match every head).

Let’s give attention to the H and D dimensions earlier than the multiplication with Wₒ. From picture above, every head now has a vector of dimension 64 that’s being multiplied with the load matrix of form (64 x 512). Let’s denote the outcome by R and head by h.
To get R₁₁, we have now this equation:
R₁,₁ = h₁,₁ x Wₒ₁,₁ + h₁,₂ x Wₒ₂,₁ + …. + h₁ₓ₆₄ x Wₒ₆₄,₁
Now let’s say we had a concatenated the heads to get an consideration output form of (1 x 512) and the load matrix of form (512, 512) then the equation would have been:
R₁,₁ = h₁,₁ x Wₒ₁,₁ + h₁,₂ x Wₒ₂,₁ + …. + h₁ₓ₅₁₂ x Wₒ₅₁₂,₁
So, the half h₁ₓ₆₅ x Wₒ₆₅,₁ + … + h₁ₓ₅₁₂ x Wₒ₅₁₂,₁ would have been added. However this half being added is the half that’s current in every of the opposite heads in modulo 64 vogue. Mentioned one other manner, if there isn’t a concatenation, Wₒ₆₅,₁ is the worth behind Wₒ₁,₁ within the second head, Wₒ₁₂₉,₁ is the worth behind Wₒ₁,₁ within the third head and so forth if we think about that the values for every head sit behind each other. Therefore, even with out concatenation, the “summing over the heads” operation leads to the identical values being added.
In conclusion, this perception lays the inspiration of taking a look at transformers as purely additive fashions in that every one the operations in a transformer take the preliminary embedding and add to it. This view opens up new potentialities like tracing options as they’re learnt through additions via the layers (known as circuit tracing) which is what mechanistic interpretability is about as I’ll present in my subsequent articles.
We have now proven that this view is mathematically equal to the vastly totally different view that multi-head consideration, by splitting Q,Okay,V parallelizes and optimizes computation of consideration. Learn extra about this on this weblog here and the precise paper that introduces these factors is here.