arxiv: 2604.07019 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

ConceptTracer: Interactive Analysis of Concept Saliency and Selectivity in Neural Representations

Ricardo Knauer , Andre Beinrucker , Erik Rodner

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AI

keywords ConceptTracerneural representationsconcept saliencyconcept selectivityTabPFNinterpretable neuronsmechanistic interpretabilitytabular models

0 comments

The pith

ConceptTracer is an interactive tool that uses information-theoretic measures to identify neurons selectively responsive to human-interpretable concepts.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents ConceptTracer as a way to open up the internal representations of neural networks by focusing on specific concepts rather than raw activations. It combines two measures, one for how strongly a neuron responds to a concept and one for how exclusively it does so, inside an interactive interface that lets users browse and select concepts. When applied to the representations learned by TabPFN, the tool surfaces neurons that appear to correspond to understandable features. A reader would care because current models remain hard to inspect, and this offers a concrete method to link parts of the network to ideas that matter in practice. If the approach holds, it supplies a repeatable process for mapping concept-level information inside models trained on tabular data.

Core claim

ConceptTracer integrates two information-theoretic measures of concept saliency and selectivity into an interactive application that enables identification of neurons responding strongly to individual concepts. Demonstrated on representations learned by TabPFN, the approach facilitates the discovery of interpretable neurons and supplies a practical framework for investigating how neural networks encode concept-level information.

What carries the argument

The interactive ConceptTracer application that combines information-theoretic measures of concept saliency and selectivity to surface neurons tied to chosen concepts.

If this is right

Users can systematically locate neurons that carry information about specific concepts within models like TabPFN.
The same measures and interface can be reused to compare concept encoding across different layers or training runs.
Interpretability work on tabular foundation models gains a repeatable way to move from raw weights to concept-level descriptions.
Downstream tasks such as debugging or auditing predictions become easier when concept-responsive neurons are already isolated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same saliency and selectivity measures could be applied to image or language models to test whether concept encoding follows similar patterns outside tabular data.
If the discovered neurons prove causal in controlled interventions, the tool could support editing model behavior by targeting those units.
Extending the interface to support user-defined concepts during training might allow alignment checks before deployment.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen information-theoretic measures of saliency and selectivity actually align with human-interpretable concepts rather than spurious patterns in the data.

What would settle it

Testing neurons identified by ConceptTracer for a given concept, such as by measuring whether their activations change reliably when only that concept is varied in held-out inputs while other features stay fixed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07019 by Andre Beinrucker, Erik Rodner, Ricardo Knauer.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: The ConceptTracer dashboard for the interactive analysis of neural representations. In the next section, we show how concept saliency and selectivity can be integrated into an interactive mechanistic interpretability dashboard to facilitate the discovery of interpretable neurons in neural representations. 4. ConceptTracer In this section, we introduce ConceptTracer1 , an interactive application for analyzi… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Significant neuron-concept pairs for our tasks. Black denotes the global Pareto front, with larger markers indicating knee points. The Pareto fronts for the sparse probing baselines via SHAP values and optimal probing are shown in orange and red, respectively. encoder layers [10] and passed them, together with the concept labels, to ConceptTracer to systematically analyze the neuron-concept pairs. As basel… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Neural networks deliver impressive predictive performance across a variety of tasks, but they are often opaque in their decision-making processes. Despite a growing interest in mechanistic interpretability, tools for systematically exploring the representations learned by neural networks in general, and tabular foundation models in particular, remain limited. In this work, we introduce ConceptTracer, an interactive application for analyzing neural representations through the lens of human-interpretable concepts. ConceptTracer integrates two information-theoretic measures that quantify concept saliency and selectivity, enabling researchers and practitioners to identify neurons that respond strongly to individual concepts. We demonstrate the utility of ConceptTracer on representations learned by TabPFN and show that our approach facilitates the discovery of interpretable neurons. Together, these capabilities provide a practical framework for investigating how neural networks like TabPFN encode concept-level information. ConceptTracer is available at https://github.com/ml-lab-htw/concept-tracer.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

ConceptTracer is a new interactive tool for saliency/selectivity analysis on TabPFN but its utility claims rest only on qualitative demonstration without metrics or baselines.

read the letter

The paper introduces ConceptTracer, an interactive application that uses information-theoretic measures to highlight neurons responsive to specific concepts in neural networks, with a focus on TabPFN for tabular data. This is the core new element: a targeted workflow and UI for this type of analysis. It does well by making the tool available on GitHub and applying it to a less-studied area like tabular foundation models. The combination of saliency and selectivity into one interactive setup is a practical step that could help practitioners explore representations without starting from scratch. The soft spots are around validation. The demonstration relies on qualitative observations to say it facilitates discovery of interpretable neurons. Without reported comparisons to baselines, human evaluation metrics, or checks against spurious correlations, it's difficult to know how reliable the identified neurons are. The measures themselves are standard, so the novelty is in the application rather than new theory. This work is for researchers in AI interpretability who deal with tabular models and want an off-the-shelf way to probe concepts. It could be useful for quick exploration even if not definitive. I think it deserves peer review because the tool itself might be of interest, and referees can suggest the missing experiments. My recommendation is to send it for review rather than desk reject, provided the authors can address the evaluation gaps.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ConceptTracer, an interactive tool that applies two standard information-theoretic measures (concept saliency and selectivity) to neural activations in order to surface neurons responsive to human-interpretable concepts. It demonstrates the tool on representations learned by TabPFN and asserts that the approach facilitates discovery of interpretable neurons, with the implementation released on GitHub.

Significance. If the saliency and selectivity statistics can be shown to reliably recover neurons aligned with semantic concepts rather than incidental correlations, the tool would supply a practical, open-source framework for mechanistic interpretability of tabular foundation models, an area that currently lacks systematic exploration tools. The GitHub release is a clear strength for reproducibility.

major comments (2)

[Demonstration section] Demonstration on TabPFN representations: the claim that ConceptTracer 'facilitates the discovery of interpretable neurons' rests entirely on qualitative examples; no quantitative validation (inter-annotator agreement, comparison to random or magnitude baselines, or alignment with ground-truth concept annotations) is reported, leaving the mapping from the chosen statistics to human interpretability untested.
[Abstract and evaluation] Abstract and evaluation: the two information-theoretic measures are presented as enabling identification of concept-responsive neurons, yet the manuscript provides no ablation, error analysis, or comparison showing that these measures outperform simpler alternatives or recover concepts better than chance.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract could explicitly note that the utility demonstration is qualitative only, to set reader expectations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and outline the revisions we intend to make to improve the paper.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Demonstration section] Demonstration on TabPFN representations: the claim that ConceptTracer 'facilitates the discovery of interpretable neurons' rests entirely on qualitative examples; no quantitative validation (inter-annotator agreement, comparison to random or magnitude baselines, or alignment with ground-truth concept annotations) is reported, leaving the mapping from the chosen statistics to human interpretability untested.

Authors: We concur that the current demonstration is primarily qualitative and that additional quantitative support would strengthen the claims regarding the discovery of interpretable neurons. The focus of the work is on providing an interactive tool for analysis rather than a comprehensive benchmarked method. In the revised manuscript, we will incorporate comparisons against random and magnitude baselines to provide quantitative context for the saliency and selectivity metrics. We will also temper the language in the abstract and demonstration section to reflect the exploratory nature of the tool. However, performing inter-annotator agreement or alignment with ground-truth annotations is not possible at this stage without new data collection efforts. revision: partial
Referee: [Abstract and evaluation] Abstract and evaluation: the two information-theoretic measures are presented as enabling identification of concept-responsive neurons, yet the manuscript provides no ablation, error analysis, or comparison showing that these measures outperform simpler alternatives or recover concepts better than chance.

Authors: The measures are standard information-theoretic quantities applied within the interactive framework of ConceptTracer. We do not claim they outperform all alternatives but rather that they are useful for the purpose of the tool. We will add an ablation study comparing them to simpler alternatives like activation magnitude and include a discussion of potential limitations and error cases in the revised evaluation section. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

Inter-annotator agreement studies and validation against ground-truth concept annotations for TabPFN neurons cannot be addressed without conducting separate human evaluation experiments and acquiring labeled data, which exceeds the scope of the current work focused on the tool and its demonstration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper introduces ConceptTracer as an interactive tool that applies standard information-theoretic measures of concept saliency and selectivity to neural activations, with a qualitative demonstration on TabPFN representations. No equations, derivations, or self-citations are present that reduce any central claim to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or inputs by construction. The methodology relies on externally defined information-theoretic quantities rather than any load-bearing self-referential steps, making the framework self-contained without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the domain assumption that information-theoretic saliency and selectivity metrics applied to neuron activations will yield human-interpretable concepts. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Information-theoretic measures can quantify concept saliency and selectivity in neural activations
Core premise of the two measures integrated in ConceptTracer.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5454 in / 1094 out tokens · 37454 ms · 2026-05-10T19:07:43.784111+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith.Cost.FunctionalEquation washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We define the saliency for neuron i with respect to concept j as this mutual information: saliency(a_i,b_j) = Î(a_i,b_j)
IndisputableMonolith.Foundation.RealityFromDistinction reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

selectivity(a_i,b_j) = saliency(a_i,b_j) / sum saliency(a_i,b_c)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models

R. Bommasani, D. A. Hudson, E. Adeli, R. Altman, S. Arora, S. von Arx, M. S. Bernstein, J. Bohg, A. Bosselut, E. Brunskill, E. Brynjolfsson, S. Buch, D. Card, R. Castellon, N. Chatterji, A. Chen, K. Creel, J. Q. Davis, D. Demszky, C. Donahue, M. Doumbouya, E. Durmus, S. Ermon, J. Etchemendy, K. Ethayarajh, L. Fei-Fei, C. Finn, T. Gale, L. Gillespie, K. Go...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[2]

Longo, M

L. Longo, M. Brcic, F. Cabitza, J. Choi, R. Confalonieri, J. Del Ser, R. Guidotti, Y. Hayashi, F. Herrera, A. Holzinger, et al., Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) 2.0: A manifesto of open challenges and interdisciplinary research directions, Information Fusion 106 (2024) 102301

2024
[3]

Adler, A

R. Adler, A. Bunte, S. Burton, J. Großmann, A. Jaschke, P. Kleen, J. M. Lorenz, J. Ma, K. Markert, H. Meeß, et al., Deutsche Normungsroadmap Künstliche Intelligenz (2022)

2022
[4]

URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj

European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU...

2024
[5]

A primer on the inner workings of transformer-based language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00208, 2024

J. Ferrando, G. Sarti, A. Bisazza, M. R. Costa-jussà, A primer on the inner workings of transformer- based language models, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00208.arXiv:2405.00208

work page arXiv 2024
[6]

Sharkey, B

L. Sharkey, B. Chughtai, J. Batson, J. Lindsey, J. Wu, L. Bushnaq, N. Goldowsky-Dill, S. Heimersheim, A. Ortega, J. I. Bloom, S. Biderman, A. Garriga-Alonso, A. Conmy, N. Nanda, J. M. Rumbelow, M. Wattenberg, N. Schoots, J. Miller, W. Saunders, E. J. Michaud, S. Casper, M. Tegmark, D. Bau, E. Todd, A. Geiger, M. Geva, J. Hoogland, D. Murfet, T. McGrath, O...

2025
[7]

Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Tasks

J. Hewitt, P. Liang, Designing and interpreting probes with control tasks, in: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), Association for Computational Lin- guistics (ACL), Hong Kong, China, 2019, pp. 2733–2743. URL: https:...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1275 2019
[8]

E. R. Kandel, J. D. Koester, S. H. Mack, S. A. Siegelbaum, Principles of neural science, volume 6, McGraw Hill, 2021

2021
[9]

Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps

K. Simonyan, A. Vedaldi, A. Zisserman, Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising image classification models and saliency maps, 2014. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6034. arXiv:1312.6034

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[10]

TabPFN-2.5: Advancing the State of the Art in Tabular Foundation Models

L. Grinsztajn, K. Flöge, O. Key, F. Birkel, P. Jund, B. Roof, B. Jäger, D. Safaric, S. Alessi, A. Hayler, M. Manium, R. Yu, F. Jablonski, S. B. Hoo, A. Garg, J. Robertson, M. Bühler, V. Moroshan, L. Purucker, C. Cornu, L. C. Wehrhahn, A. Bonetto, B. Schölkopf, S. Gambhir, N. Hollmann, F. Hutter, TabPFN- 2.5: Advancing the state of the art in tabular found...

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026
[11]

Hollmann, S

N. Hollmann, S. Müller, L. Purucker, A. Krishnakumar, M. Körfer, S. B. Hoo, R. T. Schirrmeister, F. Hutter, Accurate predictions on small data with a tabular foundation model, Nature 637 (2025) 319–326

2025
[12]

grandmother cell

C. G. Gross, Genealogy of the “grandmother cell”, The Neuroscientist 8 (2002) 512–518

2002
[13]

R. Q. Quiroga, L. Reddy, G. Kreiman, C. Koch, I. Fried, Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain, Nature 435 (2005) 1102–1107

2005
[14]

Dijk, oegesam, R

O. Dijk, oegesam, R. Bell, Lily, Simon-Free, B. Serna, E. Ferdman, rajgupt, yanhong-zhao-ef, A. Gädke, A. Todor, A. Kulkarni, Evgeniy, Hugo, J. Salomon, M. Haizad, S. Soni, T. Okumus, woochan-jang, explainerdashboard, 2026. URL: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18526511

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18526511 2026
[15]

URL: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ machine-learning/concept-responsible-ai-dashboard

Microsoft, Responsible AI dashboard, 2026. URL: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ machine-learning/concept-responsible-ai-dashboard

2026
[16]

Bertsimas, J

D. Bertsimas, J. Pauphilet, B. Van Parys, Sparse classification: a scalable discrete optimization perspective, Machine Learning 110 (2021) 3177–3209

2021
[17]

L. Gao, T. D. la Tour, H. Tillman, G. Goh, R. Troll, A. Radford, I. Sutskever, J. Leike, J. Wu, Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders, in: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Singapore, 2025. URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=tcsZt9ZNKD

2025
[18]

Gurnee, N

W. Gurnee, N. Nanda, M. Pauly, K. Harvey, D. Troitskii, D. Bertsimas, Finding neurons in a haystack: Case studies with sparse probing, Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2023)

2023
[19]

Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2

T. Lieberum, S. Rajamanoharan, A. Conmy, L. Smith, N. Sonnerat, V. Varma, J. Kramar, A. Dragan, R. Shah, N. Nanda, Gemma Scope: Open sparse autoencoders everywhere all at once on Gemma 2, in: Proceedings of the 7th BlackboxNLP Workshop: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Miami, USA, 2024, p...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.blackboxnlp-1.19 2024
[20]

Templeton, T

A. Templeton, T. Conerly, J. Marcus, J. Lindsey, T. Bricken, B. Chen, A. Pearce, C. Citro, E. Ameisen, A. Jones, H. Cunningham, N. L. Turner, C. McDougall, M. MacDiarmid, C. D. Freeman, T. R. Sumers, E. Rees, J. Batson, A. Jermyn, S. Carter, C. Olah, T. Henighan, Scaling monosemanticity: Extracting interpretable features from Claude 3 Sonnet, Transformer ...

2024
[21]

Lin, Neuronpedia: Interactive reference and tooling for analyzing neural networks, 2023

J. Lin, Neuronpedia: Interactive reference and tooling for analyzing neural networks, 2023. URL: https://www.neuronpedia.org

2023
[22]

Dayan, L

P. Dayan, L. F. Abbott, Theoretical neuroscience: computational and mathematical modeling of neural systems, MIT press, 2005

2005
[23]

Oikarinen, T.-W

T. Oikarinen, T.-W. Weng, CLIP-dissect: Automatic description of neuron representations in deep vision networks, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Kigali, Rwanda, 2023. URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=iPWiwWHc1V

2023
[24]

C. E. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communication, The Bell System Technical Journal 27 (1948) 379–423

1948
[25]

François, V

D. François, V. Wertz, M. Verleysen, The permutation test for feature selection by mutual informa- tion., in: Proceedings of the 14th European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks (ESANN), European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks (ESANN), Bruges, Belgium, 2006, pp. 239–244. URL: https://www.esann.org/proceedings/2006

2006
[26]

Knauer, E

R. Knauer, E. Rodner, In search of grandmother cells: Tracing interpretable neurons in tabular representations, 2026. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03657.arXiv:2601.03657

work page arXiv 2026
[27]

R. A. Ince, B. L. Giordano, C. Kayser, G. A. Rousselet, J. Gross, P. G. Schyns, A statistical framework for neuroimaging data analysis based on mutual information estimated via a gaussian copula, Human brain mapping 38 (2017) 1541–1573

2017
[28]

P. H. Westfall, S. S. Young, Resampling-based multiple testing: Examples and methods for p-value adjustment, John Wiley & Sons, 1993

1993
[29]

E. K. Nikolitsa, P. I. Kontou, P. G. Bagos, metacp: a versatile software package for combining dependent or independent p-values, BMC Bioinformatics 26 (2025) 109

2025
[30]

F. Xie, J. Zhou, J. W. Lee, M. Tan, S. Li, L. S. Rajnthern, M. L. Chee, B. Chakraborty, A.-K. I. Wong, A. Dagan, et al., Benchmarking emergency department prediction models with machine learning and public electronic health records, Scientific Data 9 (2022) 658

2022
[31]

Erickson, L

N. Erickson, L. Purucker, A. Tschalzev, D. Holzmüller, P. M. Desai, D. Salinas, F. Hutter, TabArena: A living benchmark for machine learning on tabular data, Advances in neural information processing systems 39 (2025). URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=jZqCqpCLdU

2025
[32]

Covert, S

I. Covert, S. Lundberg, S.-I. Lee, Explaining by removing: A unified framework for model explana- tion, Journal of Machine Learning Research 22 (2021) 1–90

2021
[33]

S. M. Lundberg, S.-I. Lee, A unified approach to interpreting model predictions, Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2017). URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3295222.3295230

work page doi:10.5555/3295222.3295230 2017
[34]

P. L. Williams, R. D. Beer, Nonnegative decomposition of multivariate information, 2010. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2515.arXiv:1004.2515

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[35]

S. Dev, T. Li, J. M. Phillips, V. Srikumar, On measuring and mitigating biased inferences of word embeddings, in: Proceedings of the 44th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI Press, New York, USA, 2020, pp. 7659–7666. URL: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/6267/ 6123

2020