Add willkn GreaterWrong corroboration: independent GPT-2-medium finding that raw J-lens misweights structural (high-frequency) tokens + full-rank Jacobian; shrinkage J+lambda I as untested next experiment

3 files changed, 298 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/blog-jlens-frequency.md b/docs/blog-jlens-frequency.md
index e73a2fe..7e01de0 100644
--- a/docs/blog-jlens-frequency.md
+++ b/docs/blog-jlens-frequency.md
@@ -198,6 +198,20 @@ either, and its one acknowledgment of high-frequency-token trouble was in a
 separate method they chose not to use. Any "privileged subspace"
 interpretation needs a frequency control first.
 
+We are also not alone in noticing the raw lens is distorted by token
+statistics. An independent research-engineer analysis of the same paper
+(willkn, "Anthropic's J-Lens: A Research Engineer's Analysis", GreaterWrong,
+24 Jul 2026), working on GPT-2-medium (355M — thirty times our model), found
+that the raw fitted Jacobian "misweights structural tokens (grammar,
+punctuation) over semantic content" — its dominant spectral channels carry
+~10x the gain of the residual pathway. Structural tokens are the high-frequency
+tokens. They also found the Jacobian essentially full-rank (562-858 dimensions
+for 90% of spectral variance), matching our toy-scale rank result. Their fix is
+a single-parameter shrinkage regularizer (J + λI) that restores next-token
+faithfulness — and Anthropic's released fitting code applies no such
+regularization. Whether shrinkage also removes the frequency correlation is an
+experiment we have not run yet; it is a natural next step.
+
 ## 7. But not *only* frequency
 
 Now the twist. Correlation is not causation, so we ran a cleaner test. We made
diff --git a/docs/willkn-jlens-greaterwrong-analysis.md b/docs/willkn-jlens-greaterwrong-analysis.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7a12cbf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/willkn-jlens-greaterwrong-analysis.md
@@ -0,0 +1,260 @@
+# Anthropic's J-Lens: A Research Engineer's Analysis
+
+**Author:** willkn
+**Source:** https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/vHxGD5HKsFuBStirq/anthropic-s-j-lens-a-research-engineer-s-analysis
+**Date:** 24 Jul 2026
+**Notebooks:** https://github.com/willkn/jlens_re
+**Note:** Reproduced here (with attribution) as reference material for this
+repo's analysis. Model: GPT-2-medium (355M, d=1024, L=24, V=50,257), fp32, HF
+transformers, NVIDIA L4. "This is research engineering, not mechanistic
+interpretability" — author's own epistemic-status note.
+
+---
+
+Epistemic status: this is research engineering, not mechanistic interpretability.
+The compute/cost claims are measured or derived from architecture constants. The
+quality claims (faithfulness comparisons, spectral channel interpretations) are
+from one small base model (gpt2-medium), one metric, and in places small samples
+(n=32); I make no claims about whether the J-space constitutes reasoning or a
+workspace and this post is about determining what it costs to run the tool in
+production environments, not the tool's outputs.
+
+**Headline Result: Lens Monitoring is nearly free at decode time with small
+dictionary size**
+
+Anthropic recently released a paper on the transformer circuits platform called
+'Verbalizable Representations Form a Global Workspace in Language Models'. This
+paper posits that models have an internal workspace where non-verbalised
+concepts, perhaps certain reasoning steps or other intermediary computations,
+exist. Anthropic call this the J-Space.
+
+Here is an example from the paper — we see that the model holds certain values
+in the J-Space when computing an output. One of the core discussions ongoing
+around this paper is whether the values we observe in the J-Space are useful and
+if they constitute reasoning. We will not engage with that discussion in this
+post. Although, I feel that these values have a lot of potential and imagine
+many practitioners will be looking to implement the techniques into their own
+experiments or production systems, so this writeup serves as a first venture
+into analysis of production-level engineering with the J-Space.
+
+Throughout the writeup we will focus our analysis on memory, compute and
+inference speeds.
+
+## The J-Space — an overview
+
+Before we dive into the mathematics, at a high level, how do we access the
+J-Space? The residual stream is used to determine an output in the final layer
+by providing a set of logits over a vocabulary, such as the English language.
+This however is not possible within middle layers as they do not share the same
+understanding of the residual stream as the final layer does. The paper
+therefore aims to understand these layers as we do the final layer. To do this,
+we create an object, the Jacobian, that measures how much the final layer
+changes (and in which direction) based on some change at an earlier layer. For
+example, we may observe that an earlier layer is making it more likely that the
+output will be related to a certain concept.
+
+The formal mathematical definition of the J-Space gives us instant intuition on
+whether the techniques used are feasible for production environments. To access
+the J-Space we need to firstly compute a Jacobian, and secondly, apply it at
+inference time.
+
+## Part 1: Computing the Jacobian
+
+Let h_l[t] be the residual stream vector of dimension d at layer l, position t.
+Everything downstream of this vector is a function mapping h_l[t] to the final
+layer residuals at h_k[t'], where t' >= t since we are using a causal mask
+(earlier positions can't attend to later positions to stop the model 'cheating').
+
+We then define our Jacobian. For one prompt and one position pair, we run the
+prompt through the transformer blocks (which can be thought of as a non-linear
+function f) which produces a final output h_k[t']:
+
+    1.1  h_L[t'] = f(h_l[t])
+
+We can represent this nonlinear function as a Jacobian (which is linear), a
+collection of these outputs:
+
+    1.2  A_l = ∂h_L[t'] / ∂h_l[t]
+
+Every entry in this Jacobian, for example A[i, j], tells us how much coordinate
+i of the final output vector at position t' were to shift if we made a small
+change in the residual stream at layer l. Practically, this encodes the
+intermediate computations that happen in a forward pass and lets us know what
+exactly each token changes about the output.
+
+It is helpful to think of intermediate layers in terms of the final layer. In
+the final layer, we output a word based on the value of the residual vector. In
+intermediate layers, we have no such thing, and the value of a residual vector
+in layer 5 might not mean the same thing it does in the final layer. The
+Jacobian we have here allows us to link non-final layers to the final layers
+and extract meaning that otherwise would not be found — analogous to a linear
+map (lossy, non-reversible). However, computing the Jacobian with one prompt
+gives us a biased view due to taking on individual 'characteristics' of that
+prompt, so we must compute with multiple (n=1000 in the Anthropic paper) to get
+a better representation:
+
+    1.3  A_l = (1/N) Σ_i A_i
+
+This is the general definition of how to obtain a Jacobian for the J-lens.
+Let's go into some of the engineering tricks Anthropic used to compute theirs
+in the paper.
+
+### The Engineering of Computing a Jacobian
+
+We will first look at how Anthropic determine the Jacobian in the paper.
+
+We call backprop once per output coordinate: inject a one-hot gradient at
+coordinate i of the final-layer residual (at every valid target position at
+once) and backpropagate to layer l; each backward returns row i. We then stack
+these rows to create our final Jacobian. Since backprop passes through every
+intermediary layer l' where l' > l, we can pick up those too and build
+Jacobians per layer without having to rerun independently. We also need to
+remember to take averages when computing to destroy the noise that is
+accumulated by individual prompts or tokens.
+
+In one sentence: 'Run backprop once per output coordinate to harvest the
+Jacobian row by row, with positions averaged inside each pass and prompts
+averaged across passes — d backwards per prompt, and the average of it all is
+the J-lens matrix'
+
+### Compute required for a Jacobian
+
+Setup: GPT-2-medium (355M, d=1024, L=24, V=50,257), fp32, HF transformers,
+NVIDIA L4.
+
+Fitting: 128-token WikiText-2 prompts; dim_batch=8 (output dimensions per
+backward, prompt replicated along the batch axis).
+
+(Compute formula, from the author's analysis — see source for full derivation.)
+
+Let ε be the target relative estimator error at layer l (the "performance p" in
+matrix-space terms). c_l is the layer's noise coefficient — the constant in the
+measured 1/√n convergence law, where rel_F(J_n) ≈ c_l/√n. Empirically, c_l
+grows toward early layers, increasing roughly 4× from layer 20 to layer 4 on
+GPT-2-medium. a + b·(L − l) captures the measured per-backward cost, which
+scales linearly with depth spanned. On an L4 GPU at dim_batch = 8, we measured
+a ≈ 5 ms and b ≈ 9 ms/layer. d/dim_batch gives the number of backward passes
+required per prompt, with the forward pass cost t_fwd negligible by comparison.
+
+Two important notes come with this formula:
+
+1. **You pay for the earliest layer, the rest are free:** When computing an
+   earlier layer l, all layers where l' > l are 'free' due to the necessity of
+   computing them during backpropagation for layer l.
+2. **The formula is only valid for ε above the layer's bias floor:** If a layer
+   cannot represent the non-linearity of future layers above bias floor in a
+   linear manner, no corpus size will fit a good Jacobian. This is a fundamental
+   problem with linear functions being unable to approximate non-linear
+   functions as they grow more complex, not a sample size issue.
+
+### What Quality looks like — and how to fix it
+
+On GPT-2-medium, the raw fitted Jacobian underperforms logit lens on
+next-token faithfulness. Spectral analysis reveals the cause: the Jacobian's
+dominant channels carry ~10× the gain of the residual pathway, misweighting
+structural tokens (grammar, punctuation) over semantic content. This is not a
+signal problem, but rather a transport weighting problem.
+
+Crucially, this is fixable. A single-parameter shrinkage regularizer J + λI
+monotonically recovers faithfulness across all layers. At layer 12 specifically,
+this simple fix doesn't just match logit lens, it exceeds it (0.294 vs. 0.275).
+This reveals an important engineering requirement: practitioners using J-lens
+monitoring must regularise the raw Jacobian to generalize properly. The
+mechanism is straightforward and the improvement is material.
+
+It should be stressed that the transport weighting issue was only identified on
+gpt2-medium. This does not mean that the issue does or does not exist for other
+models, we merely provide a fix for gpt2-medium that may work for other models
+with the same phenomenon.
+
+## Part 2: Jacobian at Inference
+
+Fitting is one off — once we have the Jacobian we do not need to recompute it.
+Therefore, it is just a case of applying it at inference time.
+
+We assume here that we apply monitoring at every token. The lens readout at one
+layer and one position is two matrix vector products (transport then decode).
+
+    3.1.1  lens(h) = softmax(W_U · ln_f( J_l · h ))
+    cost per layer per position = (2d² (transport J_l·h) + 2dV (unembed))
+    d = model dimensionality, V = vocab size, h = residual stream
+
+Against the model's own per-token forward cost of 24·L·d² monitoring K layers
+with a full-vocabulary readout at every generated token adds:
+
+    3.1.2  overhead = K·(d + V) / (24·L·d)
+
+Practical use note: Anthropic use a method where only certain words are
+considered in monitoring for the J-Lens. Softmax poses a problem here: if we
+monitor for violent content and the user asks about the weather, softmax gives
+a distribution of all the monitored words rather than their magnitude — no
+signal, false positive. The vocabulary term dominates: full vocab readout of
+one layer = 17% of a forward pass; 5 layers = 90%; all 24 layers of GPT-2 = 4x
+a forward pass. Markedly lower in a frontier-shaped model (D=8192, L=80,
+V=128k) due to V/d shrinking — ~45% of a forward pass for 24 layers, still too
+expensive for an always-on monitor.
+
+The deployment method Anthropic cover in the paper — a fixed length dictionary
+to reduce vocabulary size. Everything before the softmax is linear (through the
+Jacobian approximation), so this reduces the calculation into dot products of
+the residual against precomputed J-Lens vectors, one per watched token:
+
+    3.2  score(c) = (J_lᵀ u_c) · h
+    cost = 2·C·d per layer per token
+
+For C=1000 concepts over five layers on gpt2-medium this is **less than 2% of
+a forward pass**.
+
+As expected, wall clock overhead and FLOP share grows (nearly) linearly as
+layer size increases. Kernel launch floor ≈ 1.2% (c=100 gives FLOP share
+0.17%). Percentages relative to a baseline serving speed of 18.3ms/tok.
+
+### Can the linear transport be compressed?
+
+A natural idea is to try and reduce the rank of the Jacobian to reduce the
+computation required. However, on this model this does not seem to be a
+particularly viable. To capture 90% of spectral variance requires 562-858
+dimensions; the remaining 10% spreads across the last 166-462 dimensions
+dependent on layer. **The Jacobian is essentially full-rank, leaving little
+room for compression.** I posit that similar size models likely have the same
+problem due to being overcomplete with features, but it is yet to be seen if
+there is an opportunity to reduce the rank with larger models.
+
+### Putting it all together
+
+Anthropic claim in the paper that middle layers are where the J-Lens works
+best. We make no claim about the quality of the concepts verbalised in these
+middle layers but we do claim that middle layers are optimal for engineering
+and computational efficiency with the J-Lens — a synergistic result. Earlier
+layers are more expensive to compute (backprop through every layer that follows)
+and less useful ('setting the stage'; linear approximation struggles with many
+nonlinear layers). Even where logit-lens is a better tool in later layers, the
+difference in compute for a single layer, single token between the two methods
+is small: logit lens = 2dV; J-lens = 2d² + 2dV; difference = 2d² (~2% more
+FLOPs on gpt2-medium given vocab dominance).
+
+### So What?
+
+Anthropic's J-Lens monitoring is deployment viable on small models with a
+dictionary of around 1000 concepts at 2% compute overhead per token. No claims
+on extrapolation to larger models, but the mathematics suggest likely more
+efficient on larger models (V/d shrinks). Key engineering takeaways for smaller
+models: (1) Regularise the raw Jacobian; (2) Target middle layers for best
+utility/cost tradeoff; (3) Compute Jacobians for each layer simultaneously.
+
+### Conclusion
+
+The J-Lens is a technique that is certainly feasible at runtime with reasonably
+sized dictionaries. It has the potential to transform how models are monitored,
+understood and finetuned (Goodfire, 2026). All with the added benefit of taking
+relatively few FLOPs as a percentage of total FLOPs, and being inexpensive to
+train, even at frontier model levels. However, this must be read with the caveat
+of results on smaller models, where certain directions dominate without
+suppression of the dominant directions. At least in this implementation, this
+was a real emergent phenomenon that needed addressing to get the J-Lens to work
+in smaller models. It is implied that this was not a problem in Claude's 4.5/4.6
+generation of models through Anthropic's work, but it is yet to be seen if this
+happens with other models.
+
+References: Gurnee, W., et al, 2026. Verbalizable Representations Form a Global
+Workspace in Language Models. 24 Jul 2026, GreaterWrong.
diff --git a/results.md b/results.md
index 574ee06..48c1c48 100644
--- a/results.md
+++ b/results.md
@@ -69,6 +69,30 @@ experiment + evaluation data) finds ZERO occurrences of frequency/unigram/
 token-count terms. Their README confirms the fit corpus is "a generic web-text
 corpus" — no frequency balancing.
 
+## 1c. Independent corroboration (willkn, GreaterWrong, GPT-2-medium)
+
+An independent engineering analysis of the paper (willkn, GreaterWrong, 24 Jul
+2026; notebooks: github.com/willkn/jlens_re; full text: docs/willkn-jlens-
+greaterwrong-analysis.md), on GPT-2-medium (355M, d=1024, L=24, V=50,257),
+found:
+- the raw fitted Jacobian "misweights structural tokens (grammar, punctuation)
+  over semantic content" — dominant spectral channels carry ~10x the gain of
+  the residual pathway. Structural tokens ARE the high-frequency tokens; this
+  is the same distortion we measure as frequency anti-correlation, at 30x our
+  model scale and via a different metric (next-token faithfulness of the
+  readout).
+- the Jacobian is essentially full-rank: 562-858 dimensions capture 90% of
+  spectral variance, "leaving little room for compression" — corroborates our
+  dimensional-starvation / full-rank result at scale.
+- a single-parameter shrinkage regularizer (J + lambda*I) monotonically
+  recovers next-token faithfulness (beats logit lens at layer 12: 0.294 vs
+  0.275). Anthropic's released fitting code applies no such regularization.
+- measured noise law rel_F(J_n) ~ c_l/sqrt(n), c_l growing ~4x from layer 20
+  to layer 4; per-backward cost ~5ms + 9ms/layer on L4 at dim_batch=8.
+
+Untested (natural next experiment): does shrinkage also remove our frequency
+correlation?
+
 ## 2. Frequency-matched synthetic pair (`src/synthetic_pair.py`)
 
 Two new characters at identical 0.1% unigram frequency in Shakespeare: