Piotr Wilam | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

What, Where, and How: Disentangling the Roles of Task, Language, and Model in Code Model Representations

Do independently trained language models come to represent the same thing in the same way? We answer for code, extending a recently introduced concept-circuit extraction method to a 2x2 design -- Python and Rust crossed with Qwen2.5-Coder-7B and DeepSeek-Coder-V1-6.7B -- and measuring a complete inventory of grammatical concepts (58 Python, 57 Rust) identically in all four cells: the smallest design that separates what depends on the task, the language, and the model. The answer splits into three parts. What earns dedicated circuitry is set by the task: the models agree on which concepts receive circuits (Spearman $\rho$ = 0.638 for Python, 0.673 for Rust, both p < $10^{-7}$). Where those circuits sit is set by the model: Qwen processes concepts in a late band (~L17-19), DeepSeek at L6-7, for both languages. How circuits grow across layers is also set by the model: Qwen gives its atomic concepts an early spike that DeepSeek does not. "Are circuits universal?" thus has no single answer: yes for What, no for Where and How -- universality is a property of representational content, not of computational organisation. None of this structure was fixed in advance. The agreement could have landed anywhere between independence and identity; it lands at $\rho \approx 0.65$. Rust constructs receive 2-3x more concept-specific circuitry than their Python equivalents, in both models. Both models share neurons between the languages (6/7 and 7/7 paired constructs), DeepSeek 1.94x more than Qwen -- a direction no prior result predicts. And Qwen binds nine keywords of Rust's type-and-trait machinery into one tight neuron cluster (Jaccard 0.535 vs null 0.112, p < 0.001), a semantic dimension invisible in surface syntax. Ablation and linear probes confirm the circuits are functional. All claims are scoped to this 2x2; whether the per-model profile predicts a third model is the designed next test.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

CSP-Atlas: Concept-Specific Neural Circuits in a Sparse Python Transformer

A sparse 8-layer code transformer develops dedicated neural circuitry for every Python construct tested, and that circuitry is organised by a clean computational principle rather than by semantic category. We extract neural circuits for 106 concepts (43 AST node types, 63 builtin objects) by marginalising across 63,800 controlled prompts, and decompose each circuit into concept-specific and token-driven components using contrastive checker prompts that present a keyword token without its associated syntactic structure. Three findings emerge. First, all 106 concepts produce non-empty universal circuits at every one of nine parameter settings, and the ranking of concept-specificity across constructs is stable across the sweep - survival is not an artifact of a permissive threshold. Second, AST circuits contain a genuine concept component distinct from token activation: concept-only neurons constitute up to 62.5% of the loudest-firing neurons at mid-to-late layers, while builtin circuits are almost entirely token-driven. Third, six computationally atomic constructs - Import, ImportFrom, Break, Continue, Pass, Assert - cluster together despite being semantically unrelated, sharing only the property of being single-statement constructs requiring no nested body; this atomicity super-cluster, together with a four-tier hierarchy organised by token ambiguity and structural distinctiveness, shows that the model's internal organisation tracks computational structure rather than meaning. The methodology, full decomposition data, and analysis code are released.

cs.CL↗