REVIEW 5 cited by
Is This the Subspace You Are Looking for? An Interpretability Illusion for Subspace Activation Patching
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
Mechanistic interpretability aims to understand model behaviors in terms of specific, interpretable features, often hypothesized to manifest as low-dimensional subspaces of activations. Specifically, recent studies have explored subspace interventions (such as activation patching) as a way to simultaneously manipulate model behavior and attribute the features behind it to given subspaces. In this work, we demonstrate that these two aims diverge, potentially leading to an illusory sense of interpretability. Counterintuitively, even if a subspace intervention makes the model's output behave as if the value of a feature was changed, this effect may be achieved by activating a dormant parallel pathway leveraging another subspace that is causally disconnected from model outputs. We demonstrate this phenomenon in a distilled mathematical example, in two real-world domains (the indirect object identification task and factual recall), and present evidence for its prevalence in practice. In the context of factual recall, we further show a link to rank-1 fact editing, providing a mechanistic explanation for previous work observing an inconsistency between fact editing performance and fact localization. However, this does not imply that activation patching of subspaces is intrinsically unfit for interpretability. To contextualize our findings, we also show what a success case looks like in a task (indirect object identification) where prior manual circuit analysis informs an understanding of the location of a feature. We explore the additional evidence needed to argue that a patched subspace is faithful.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
LAWFUL: Law-Aligned Witness for Faithful Use of Latents
LAWFUL defines coverage-aware physical-consistency scores and circuit tests, reporting that a MoCap-to-Radar transformer's 9-component temporal circuit carries Doppler-law consistency via attention patterns.
-
Causal dictionary learning reveals and validates transcription-factor binding features in genomic language models
Sparse dictionaries extracted from two genomic language models contain features whose ablation shifts masked-token predictions specifically at ChIP-seq bound versus unbound sites, after GC-composition controls.
-
Transformers converge to invariant algorithmic cores
Trained transformers contain low-dimensional causal subspaces — algorithmic cores — that recur across runs and scales and can be extracted, characterized, and steered.
-
Can Interpretation Predict Behavior on Unseen Data?
Presence of hierarchical attention heads on in-distribution data predicts hierarchical out-of-distribution generalization across 270 small transformers, independent of causal support.
-
Position: Mechanistic Interpretability Should Prioritize Feature Consistency in SAEs
A position paper proposing feature consistency, measured by PW-MCC, as a core SAE evaluation criterion, with evidence that TopK SAEs achieve high consistency on LLM activations.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.