Yonatan Belinkov

Evaluating LLMs is challenging, as benchmark scores often fail to capture models' real-world usefulness. Instead, users often rely on ``vibe-testing'': informal experience-based evaluation, such as comparing models on coding tasks related to their own workflow. While prevalent, vibe-testing is often too ad hoc and unstructured to analyze or reproduce at scale. In this work, we study how vibe-testing works in practice and then formalize it to support systematic analysis. We first analyze two empirical resources: (1) a survey of user evaluation practices, and (2) a collection of in-the-wild model comparison reports from blogs and social media. Based on these resources, we formalize vibe-testing as a two-part process: users personalize both $\textit{what}$ they test and $\textit{how}$ they judge responses. We then introduce a proof-of-concept evaluation pipeline that follows this formulation by generating personalized prompts and comparing model outputs using user-aware subjective criteria. In experiments on coding benchmarks, we find that combining personalized prompts and user-aware evaluation can change which model is preferred, reflecting the role of vibe-testing in practice. These findings suggest that formalized vibe-testing can serve as a useful approach for bridging benchmark scores and real-world experience.

Mechanistic interpretability has made it possible to localize circuits underlying specific behaviors in language models, but existing methods are expensive, model-specific, and difficult to scale to larger architectures. We introduce Differentiable Faithfulness Alignment (DFA), a framework for transferring circuit information from a smaller source model to a larger target model through a learned differentiable alignment. DFA maps source-model node importance scores into the target model and optimizes this mapping for causal faithfulness via a soft intervention objective, avoiding full circuit discovery on the target model. We evaluate DFA on Llama-3 and Qwen-2.5 across six tasks spanning factual retrieval, multiple-choice reasoning, and arithmetic. The strongest results occur on LLaMA-3-1B -> 3B, where aligned circuits are often competitive with direct target-model node attribution and zero-shot transfer remains effective. Recovery is weaker for larger source--target gaps and substantially worse on Qwen-2.5, suggesting that transfer becomes harder as architectural and scaling differences increase. Overall, DFA consistently improves over simple baselines and, in some settings, recovers target-model circuits with faithfulness comparable to direct attribution. These results suggest that smaller models can provide useful mechanistic priors for larger ones, while highlighting both the promise and the limits of node-level cross-model circuit alignment.

Language models often solve complex tasks by generating long reasoning chains, consisting of many steps with varying importance. While some steps are crucial for generating the final answer, others are removable. Determining which steps matter most, and why, remains an open question central to understanding how models process reasoning. We investigate if this question is best approached through model internals or through tokens of the reasoning chain itself. We find that model activations contain more information than tokens for identifying important reasoning steps. Crucially, by training probes on model activations to predict importance, we show that models encode an internal representation of step importance, even prior to the generation of subsequent steps. The internal representations of importance in different models yield high agreement on which steps are important. The representation is distributed across layers, and does not correlate with surface-level features, such as a step's relative position or its length. Our findings suggest that analyzing activations can reveal aspects of reasoning that surface-level approaches fundamentally miss, indicating that reasoning analyses should look into model internals.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, the need to selectively remove unwanted knowledge while preserving model utility has become paramount. Recent work has explored sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to perform precise interventions on monosemantic feature...

Humans use introspection to evaluate their understanding through private internal states inaccessible to external observers. We investigate whether large language models possess similar privileged knowledge about answer correctness, information unavailable through external observation. We train c...

Text-to-image generation models suffer from alignment problems, where generated images fail to accurately capture the objects and relations in the text prompt. Prior work has focused on improving alignment by refining the diffusion process, ignoring the role of the text encoder, which guides the...

Large vision–language models (VLMs) are highly capable, yet often hallucinate by favoring textual prompts over visual evidence. We study this failure mode in a controlled object-counting setting, where the prompt overstates the number of objects in the image (e.g., asking a model to describe four...

Model merging has emerged as a promising technique for combining multiple fine-tuned models into a single multitask model without retraining. However, the factors that determine whether merging will succeed or fail remain poorly understood. In this work, we investigate why specific models are mer...