Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Codebook Features: Sparse and Discrete Interpretability for Neural Networks

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

arxiv 2310.17230 v1 pith:SNIRXONK submitted 2023-10-26 cs.LG cs.CL

classification cs.LGcs.CL
keywords neuralcodebookcodesfeaturesnetworksdiscretefindhidden
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Understanding neural networks is challenging in part because of the dense, continuous nature of their hidden states. We explore whether we can train neural networks to have hidden states that are sparse, discrete, and more interpretable by quantizing their continuous features into what we call codebook features. Codebook features are produced by finetuning neural networks with vector quantization bottlenecks at each layer, producing a network whose hidden features are the sum of a small number of discrete vector codes chosen from a larger codebook. Surprisingly, we find that neural networks can operate under this extreme bottleneck with only modest degradation in performance. This sparse, discrete bottleneck also provides an intuitive way of controlling neural network behavior: first, find codes that activate when the desired behavior is present, then activate those same codes during generation to elicit that behavior. We validate our approach by training codebook Transformers on several different datasets. First, we explore a finite state machine dataset with far more hidden states than neurons. In this setting, our approach overcomes the superposition problem by assigning states to distinct codes, and we find that we can make the neural network behave as if it is in a different state by activating the code for that state. Second, we train Transformer language models with up to 410M parameters on two natural language datasets. We identify codes in these models representing diverse, disentangled concepts (ranging from negative emotions to months of the year) and find that we can guide the model to generate different topics by activating the appropriate codes during inference. Overall, codebook features appear to be a promising unit of analysis and control for neural networks and interpretability. Our codebase and models are open-sourced at https://github.com/taufeeque9/codebook-features.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Train the Model, Not the Reader: Decodability Supervision for Verifiable Activation Explanations

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Reconstruction scores do not certify individual claims in activation explanations; co-adapted private codes can carry the score, and target-side training (RECAP) makes designated content verifiably decodable.

  2. Legible-by-Construction: Attention and End-to-End Transformers

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bounding attention values into fuzzy memberships or Boolean set operations yields 44–62% crisp selective detectors and an end-to-end legible transformer at baseline quality.

  3. Model Directions, Not Words: Mechanistic Topic Models Using Sparse Autoencoders

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MTMs replace word counts with SAE features, producing more abstract topics and enabling topic steering, and outperform word-based baselines in LLM and human pairwise evaluations.

  4. TopK Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A transformer LM trained with TopK activations in its hidden layers produces sparse, SAE-like internal representations without needing post-hoc sparse autoencoder training.

  5. Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know?

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reasoning language models are systematically overconfident, deeper reasoning makes them more overconfident, and a two-stage introspective prompting method improves calibration for some models.

Pith tools