Interpreting the Latent Structure of Operator Precedence in Language Models

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.13908
• Title: Interpreting the Latent Structure of Operator Precedence in Language Models
• Authors: Dharunish Yugeswardeenoo, Harshil Nukala, Cole Blondin, Sean O'Brien, Vasu Sharma, Kevin Zhu
• Classification: cs.CL (Computational Linguistics)
• Publication Date/Conference: COLM 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13908

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning capabilities but continue to struggle with arithmetic tasks. Previous research has primarily focused on output or prompting strategies while neglecting the internal structures through which models perform arithmetic computations. This study investigates whether LLMs encode operator precedence rules in their internal representations using the open-source instruction-tuned LLaMA 3.2-3B model. The research constructs a dataset of arithmetic expressions containing three operands and two operators, varying the order of operations and parenthesis placement. Using this dataset, the researchers trace whether intermediate results appear in the model's residual stream and apply interpretability techniques including logit lens, linear classification probes, and UMAP geometric visualization. Results demonstrate that intermediate computations exist within the residual stream, particularly following MLP blocks. The study further reveals that the model linearly encodes operator precedence information in operator embeddings after attention layers. The paper introduces a partial embedding swap technique that modifies operator precedence by exchanging high-impact embedding dimensions between operators.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

The core problem this research addresses is: whether and how large language models encode operator precedence rules in their internal representations when processing arithmetic expressions. Specifically, when a model encounters an expression like "1 + 1 × 2," does it follow mathematical precedence rules by calculating multiplication first, or does it simply process operations left-to-right?

Significance

1. Theoretical Value: Understanding the internal arithmetic reasoning mechanisms of LLMs has important implications for machine learning interpretability research
2. Practical Value: Improving model performance on mathematical reasoning tasks, particularly for smaller-scale models
3. Methodological Contribution: Providing novel technical approaches for analyzing internal representations in neural networks

Limitations of Existing Methods

• Most research focuses on natural language prompting and final output results
• Lacks in-depth analysis of operator precedence handling and intermediate computational steps
• Insufficient understanding of arithmetic computation structures within models

Research Motivation

Through mechanistic interpretability methods, this work aims to deeply investigate how LLMs internally process arithmetic expressions, with particular focus on the mechanisms underlying operation ordering.

Core Contributions

1. Constructed a systematic arithmetic expression dataset: Containing expressions with three operands and two operators, systematically testing syntactic and semantic precedence
2. Discovered evidence of intermediate computations: Using logit lens techniques to reveal that models perform intermediate calculations in deeper network layers
3. Revealed linear encoding of operator precedence: Demonstrating that models linearly encode operator precedence information after attention layers
4. Proposed partial embedding swap technique: A novel method for modifying operator precedence by exchanging high-impact embedding dimensions
5. Provided geometric visualization analysis: Using UMAP to demonstrate the organizational structure of operator representations

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: Arithmetic expressions containing three operands and two operators, such as "a o1 b o2 c" Output: The model's computed result for the expression Constraints:

• Operands a, b, c ∈ {1, 2, ..., 9}
• Operator pairs (o1, o2) drawn from mixed precedence sets: {(+, *), (-, *), (+, /), (-, /)}
• All computational results are positive integers

Dataset Construction

For each operand and operator combination, six structural variants are generated:

1. Left parentheses: (a o1 b) o2 c
2. Right parentheses: a o1 (b o2 c)
3. Flipped left parentheses: (a o2 b) o1 c
4. Flipped right parentheses: a o2 (b o1 c)
5. No parentheses (natural order): a o1 b o2 c
6. No parentheses (flipped): a o2 b o1 c

Total of 8,547 prompts generated, with the model correctly answering 4,401.

Key Technical Methods

1. Logit Lens Analysis

• Purpose: Tracking whether intermediate computations appear in the residual stream
• Method: Projecting the residual stream at each layer through the unembedding matrix to obtain logits over the vocabulary
• Analysis: Checking whether expected intermediate results appear in the top-10 tokens

2. Linear Probe Technique

• Intermediate Computation Probe: Training a linear probe to directly predict intermediate values from model activations
• Precedence Probe: Using logistic regression classifiers to predict operator computation order (first or second to be computed)

3. Partial Embedding Swap

Algorithm Flow:

1. Identify influential dimensions: Individually swap each dimension of the hidden representations of "+" and "*" operators
2. Measure perturbation effects: If swapping causes the model prediction to change from correct (e.g., 23) to incorrect (e.g., 35), that dimension encodes precedence information
3. Rank and select: Sort dimensions by influence and determine the minimal subset of dimensions needed to change predictions

4. UMAP Geometric Visualization

• Project operator token activation vectors into low-dimensional space
• Labeling format: [position][operator]precedence, e.g., "1m2" indicates a multiplication symbol at position 1 in the expression but with computation precedence 2

Experimental Setup

Model Selection

Open-source instruction-tuned LLaMA 3.2-3B model with 28 transformer layers.

Dataset Statistics

• Total prompts: 8,547
• Model correct answers: 4,401 (51.5%)
• Analysis uses only samples the model correctly predicts

Evaluation Metrics

• Intermediate Computation Detection Rate: Proportion of cases where intermediate results appear in top logits
• Linear Probe Accuracy: R² scores and classification accuracy
• Precedence Swap Success Rate: Proportion of cases where model predictions are successfully changed

Experimental Results

Main Findings

1. Existence of Intermediate Computations

• Detection Rate: Among 4,401 prompts, intermediate computations detected in top logits 2,799 times (63.6%)
• Occurrence Layers: Primarily in layers 16-27, with peak in layers 18-19
• Critical Component: MLP blocks are the key component introducing intermediate logits, not attention blocks

2. Evidence of Linear Encoding

• Linear probes achieve high-precision prediction of intermediate computations immediately after layer 0 (high R² scores)
• Precedence classification probes achieve 100% accuracy on test sets
• Attention mechanisms significantly enhance the linear decodability of operator precedence

3. Partial Embedding Swap Results

• Successfully changed model's highest logit predictions in multiple instances by swapping specific dimensions
• Demonstrates sparse localization of operator precedence information in specific embedding dimensions

4. Geometric Structure Analysis

UMAP visualization reveals:

• Distinct separation of operator embeddings before and after attention
• Operators with the same position and precedence cluster together
• Attention mechanisms encode operator precedence information

Quantitative Results

Related Work

Arithmetic Reasoning Research

• Mirzadeh et al. (2024) and Bubeck et al. (2023) highlight persistent difficulties of LLMs with arithmetic tasks
• Lewkowycz et al. (2022) explore prompting strategies such as chain-of-thought reasoning
• Boye & Moell (2025) evaluate arithmetic computation across multiple models, finding frequent inconsistencies

Mechanistic Interpretability

• Zhang et al. (2024) investigate internal structures of LLMs in arithmetic tasks
• Stolfo et al. (2023) employ causal mediation frameworks to trace component contributions to arithmetic predictions
• Nainani et al. (2024) propose "circuit" concepts to explain task-specific model behavior

Technical Methods

• nostalgebraist (2020) proposes logit lens technique
• Alain & Bengio (2018) develop linear probe methodology
• McInnes et al. (2020) develop UMAP dimensionality reduction technique

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Intermediate Computations Do Exist: The LLaMA 3.2-3B model performs intermediate computations internally, with this information becoming linearly decodable in deeper network layers
2. Linear Encoding of Precedence: Operator precedence information is linearly encoded in specific embedding dimensions after attention layers
3. Critical Role of MLPs: MLP blocks rather than attention blocks are responsible for generating intermediate computation results
4. Geometric Organizational Structure: Models organize operator representations according to operator position and computational precedence

Limitations

1. Model Scale Constraints: Experiments conducted only on a 3B-parameter LLaMA model; results may not generalize to larger-scale models
2. Task Complexity: Only considers simple expressions with three operands and two operators
3. Operator Types: Limited to basic arithmetic operations; does not cover more complex mathematical operations
4. Success Rate Limitations: Model correctly answers only approximately 51.5% of arithmetic problems

Future Directions

1. Extend to larger-scale language models
2. Investigate more complex mathematical expressions and operation types
3. Explore internal representations of other mathematical concepts (e.g., functions, equations)
4. Develop model improvement methods based on these findings

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Methodological Innovation: Partial embedding swap represents a novel and effective intervention technique
2. Experimental Comprehensiveness: Combines multiple interpretability techniques (logit lens, linear probes, UMAP, intervention experiments)
3. Finding Significance: First systematic demonstration of operator precedence encoding mechanisms in LLMs
4. Technical Rigor: Well-designed experiments using only samples the model correctly answers

Weaknesses

1. Scale Limitations: Experiments limited to 3B-parameter models; generalization remains to be verified
2. Task Simplification: Arithmetic expressions are relatively simple; complexity in real-world applications insufficiently addressed
3. Theoretical Depth: Lacks theoretical explanation for why these mechanisms emerge
4. Practical Applicability: While providing important insights, how to leverage these findings to improve model performance remains unclear

Impact

1. Academic Value: Provides important contributions to mechanistic understanding of LLM arithmetic reasoning
2. Methodological Significance: Partial embedding swap technique applicable to analysis of other tasks
3. Practical Potential: Provides direction for improving arithmetic capabilities in small-scale models
4. Reproducibility: Uses open-source models; experiments relatively easy to reproduce

Applicable Scenarios

1. Model Analysis: Applicable to analyzing internal mechanisms of other language models
2. Educational Applications: Helps understand how AI processes mathematical concepts
3. Model Improvement: Provides guidance for developing better arithmetic reasoning models
4. Interpretability Research: Offers methodological reference for mechanistic analysis of other cognitive tasks

References

This paper cites important literature from mechanistic interpretability, arithmetic reasoning, and neural network analysis, including:

• nostalgebraist (2020) - Logit lens technique
• Alain & Bengio (2018) - Linear probe methodology
• Zhang et al. (2024) - Internal structures of LLM arithmetic reasoning
• Stolfo et al. (2023) - Causal mediation analysis framework
• McInnes et al. (2020) - UMAP dimensionality reduction technique

This research provides important insights into understanding the internal arithmetic reasoning mechanisms of large language models, particularly regarding operator precedence handling. Despite certain limitations, its methodological innovation and finding significance make it a valuable contribution to the field of mechanistic interpretability.