Kyle Mahowald

Understanding when Vision-Language Models (VLMs) will behave unexpectedly, whether models can reliably predict their own behavior, and if models adhere to their introspective reasoning are central challenges for trustworthy deployment. To study this, we introduce the Graded Color Attribution (GCA) dataset, a controlled benchmark designed to elicit decision rules and evaluate participant faithfulness to these rules. GCA consists of line drawings that vary pixel-level color coverage across three conditions: ``world-knowledge'' recolorings, counterfactual recolorings, and shapes with no color priors. Using GCA, both VLMs and human participants establish a threshold: the minimum percentage of pixels of a given color an object must have to receive that color label. We then compare these rules with their subsequent color attribution decisions. Our findings reveal that models systematically violate their own introspective rules. For example, GPT-5-mini violates its stated introspection rules in nearly 60% of cases on objects with strong color priors. Human participants remain faithful to their stated rules, with any apparent violations being explained by a well-documented tendency to overestimate color coverage. In contrast, we find that VLMs are excellent estimators of color coverage, yet blatantly contradict their own reasoning in their final responses. Across all models and strategies for eliciting introspective rules, world-knowledge priors systematically degrade faithfulness in ways that do not mirror human cognition. Our findings challenge the view that VLM reasoning failures are difficulty-driven and suggest that VLM introspective self-knowledge is miscalibrated, with direct implications for high-stakes deployment.

We show how causal interventions in Transformer models provide insights into English syntax by focusing on a long-standing challenge for syntactic theory: syntactic islands. Extraction from coordinated verb phrases is often degraded, yet acceptability varies gradiently with lexical content (e.g., "I know what he hates art and loves" vs. "I know what he looked down and saw"). We show that modern Transformer language models replicate human judgments across this gradient. Using causal interventions that isolate functionally relevant subspaces in Transformer blocks, attention modules, and MLPs, we demonstrate that extraction from coordination islands engages the same filler–gap mechanisms as canonical wh-dependencies, but that these mechanisms are selectively blocked to varying degrees. By projecting a large corpus of unrelated text onto these causally identified subspaces, we derive a novel linguistic hypothesis: the conjunction "and" is represented differently in extractable versus non-extractable constructions, corresponding to expressions encoding relational dependencies versus purely conjunctive uses. These results illustrate how mechanistic interpretability can inform syntax, generating new hypotheses about linguistic representation and processing.