Reading and Steering Representations of Materials-Science Mechanisms in an Open-Weight Language Model
Abstract
Large language models can answer scientific questions, yet a correct output does not reveal whether the model represents or uses the governing physics. Here we show that materials science mechanism information in the open-weight google/gemma-4-E4B-it model has three experimentally separable forms: concepts are readable in individual hidden states, constitutive orientation is carried by controlled transformations between states, and selected internal representations causally control engineering answers. We combine matched direct and Jacobian vocabulary readouts, option-free state geometry, a 60-law counterfactual benchmark and causal interventions. In 50 held-out materials descriptions, three independently fitted Jacobian lenses reproduced concept ranks, and target-free word sets from both readouts enabled blinded identification of 9 of 10 mechanism families. A separate 72-prompt benchmark produced mechanism-specific hidden-state neighborhoods, but an exact graph audit showed that this apparent physical organization was equally explained by numerical comparison. We therefore compared otherwise identical prompts in which only the direction of the physical input was reversed, asking whether the resulting hidden-state movement followed the supplied constitutive law. These state transformations ordered direct, physically neutral and inverse laws across 60 frozen relations and correctly oriented 39 of 40 directional laws, whereas lexical controls were near chance. Bidirectional interventions shifted answer probabilities toward or away from the physically appropriate outcome across all 12 matched cases, while counterfactual state patches transferred opposing decision signals across mechanisms and answer formats. Physical relationships were therefore more visible in controlled state changes than in absolute states alone.
Community
Large language models can answer scientific questions, yet a correct output does not reveal whether the model represents or uses the governing physics. Here we show that materials science mechanism information in the open-weight google/gemma-4-E4B-it model has three experimentally separable forms: concepts are readable in individual hidden states, constitutive orientation is carried by controlled transformations between states, and selected internal representations causally control engineering answers.
We combine matched direct and Jacobian vocabulary readouts, option-free state geometry, a 60-law counterfactual benchmark and causal interventions. In 50 held-out materials descriptions, three independently fitted Jacobian lenses reproduced concept ranks, and target-free word sets from both readouts enabled blinded identification of 9 of 10 mechanism families.
A separate 72-prompt benchmark produced mechanism-specific hidden-state neighborhoods, but an exact graph audit showed that this apparent physical organization was equally explained by numerical comparison. We therefore compared otherwise identical prompts in which only the direction of the physical input was reversed, asking whether the resulting hidden-state movement followed the supplied constitutive law. These state transformations ordered direct, physically neutral and inverse laws across 60 frozen relations and correctly oriented 39 of 40 directional laws, whereas lexical controls were near chance.
Bidirectional interventions shifted answer probabilities toward or away from the physically appropriate outcome across all 12 matched cases, while counterfactual state patches transferred opposing decision signals across mechanisms and answer formats. Physical relationships were therefore more visible in controlled state changes than in absolute states alone.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- Vernier: Probing Representational Misalignment Behind Lexical Gaps in Causal Reasoning (2026)
- Do Models Read What They Write? Causal Registers in Scratchpad Reasoning (2026)
- Leverage Is Not Reach: A Control-Window Law for Single-Neuron Steering in Language Models (2026)
- The Anatomy of a Truth Direction: Knowledge-Dependent Dimensionality, a Relational Law, and a Convergent Category Geometry in Small Language Models (2026)
- MENTIS: What Belief Changes Under Alignment? Measuring Multi-Scale Latent Torsion in Language Models (2026)
- Reading Between the Dots: Decoding Hidden Computation across Filler Tokens (2026)
- Mechanistic Diagnostics of Spatial Lexical Bias in Multimodal Large Language Model Spatial Reasoning (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2607.20058 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 1
Datasets citing this paper 2
lamm-mit/gemma4-materials-latent-vectors
lamm-mit/gemma4-materials-mechanism-prompts
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper