From the DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 interpretability project
Experiments 1, 4b, and 12 establish that H6 correlates with verse/prose format. But correlation is not causation. It is possible H6 fires on prose without actually doing anything useful, the way a smoke alarm might blink whenever the oven is on without being wired into the alarm system. Experiment 13 asks the direct question: does H6 causally contribute to how the model processes prose versus verse, or is it just along for the ride?
These are the six experts we plan to knock out, one or several at a time:
| Anchor | Layer | Expert |
|---|---|---|
| H6-A1 | 21 | 42 |
| H6-A2 | 22 | 105 |
| H6-A3 | 23 | 113 |
| H6-A4 | 30 | 198 |
| H6-A5 | 32 | 254 |
| H6-A6 | 41 | 147 |
We built a 2x2 design that crosses format (verse vs. prose) with content (religious vs. secular). That lets us test whether the effect is specific to religious text or general to all text.
| Cell | Records | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Verse, religious | 120 | KJV Bible (held-out) |
| Prose, religious | 120 | Christian commentary (held-out) |
| Verse, secular | 120 | Shakespeare sonnets, Whitman, Dickinson |
| Prose, secular | 120 | Darwin, Thoreau |
| Total | 480 | 418,695 tokens |
The primary outcome is the change in negative log-likelihood (NLL) when the H6 anchors are knocked out. NLL is a standard measure of how surprised the model is by the next token: lower is better, and a rising NLL means the model is getting worse at predicting the text. If H6 is causal, knocking it out should raise NLL more on prose than on verse. In plain terms: removing H6 should hurt the model more when it is reading prose.
The ablation is implemented in a hook (exp13_ablation_hook.py, 14.6KB) deployed to both TP2 nodes. It injects into the model's forward pass to zero out or mask the H6 anchor experts. We respect the read-only constraint of the study: the hook modifies the forward pass during observation only, never the model's stored weights.