REVIEW 3 cited by
Enhancing Automated Interpretability with Output-Centric Feature Descriptions
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Automated interpretability pipelines generate natural language descriptions for the concepts represented by features in large language models (LLMs), such as plants or the first word in a sentence. These descriptions are derived using inputs that activate the feature, which may be a dimension or a direction in the model's representation space. However, identifying activating inputs is costly, and the mechanistic role of a feature in model behavior is determined both by how inputs cause a feature to activate and by how feature activation affects outputs. Using steering evaluations, we reveal that current pipelines provide descriptions that fail to capture the causal effect of the feature on outputs. To fix this, we propose efficient, output-centric methods for automatically generating feature descriptions. These methods use the tokens weighted higher after feature stimulation or the highest weight tokens after applying the vocabulary "unembedding" head directly to the feature. Our output-centric descriptions better capture the causal effect of a feature on model outputs than input-centric descriptions, but combining the two leads to the best performance on both input and output evaluations. Lastly, we show that output-centric descriptions can be used to find inputs that activate features previously thought to be "dead".
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Insights into a radiology-specialised multimodal large language model with sparse autoencoders
Applying Matryoshka sparse autoencoders to a radiology-specialised multimodal LLM reveals a minority of interpretable clinical features, while steering them produces unreliable and often off-target report changes.
-
Evaluating Neuron Explanations: A Unified Framework with Sanity Checks
Most commonly used neuron explanation evaluation metrics fail two new sanity checks, and only Correlation, Cosine, AUPRC, F1-score, and IoU pass.
-
Evaluating SAE interpretability without explanations
SAE latent interpretability can be scored directly from activation examples via intruder detection and embedding clustering, with LLM scores correlating strongly with human scores.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.