Mechanistic interpretability aims to reverse engineer neural networks by uncovering which high-level algorithms they implement. Causal abstraction provides a precise notion of when a network implements an algorithm, i.e., a causal model of the network contains low-level features that realize the high-level variables in a causal model of the algorithm. A typical problem in practical settings is that the algorithm is not an entirely faithful abstraction of the network, meaning it only partially captures the true reasoning process of a model. We propose a solution where we combine different simple high-level models to produce a more faithful representation of the network. Through learning this combination, we can model neural networks as being in different computational states depending on the input provided, which we show is more accurate to GPT 2-small fine-tuned on two toy tasks. We observe a trade-off between the strength of an interpretability hypothesis, which we define in terms of the number of inputs explained by the high-level models, and its faithfulness, which we define as the interchange intervention accuracy. Our method allows us to modulate between the two, providing the most accurate combination of models that describe the behavior of a neural network given a faithfulness level.

Mechanistic interpretability has made great strides in identifying neural network features (e.g., directions in hidden activation space) that mediate concepts(e.g., the birth year of a person) and enable predictable manipulation. Distributed alignment search (DAS) leverages supervision from counterfactual data to learn concept features within hidden states, but DAS assumes we can afford to conduct a brute force search over potential feature locations. To address this, we present HyperDAS, a transformer-based hypernetwork architecture that (1) automatically locates the token-positions of the residual stream that a concept is realized in and (2) constructs features of those residual stream vectors for the concept. In experiments with Llama3-8B, HyperDAS achieves state-of-the-art performance on the RAVEL benchmark for disentangling concepts in hidden states. In addition, we review the design decisions we made to mitigate the concern that HyperDAS (like all powerful interpretabilty methods) might inject new information into the target model rather than faithfully interpreting it.

Fine-grained steering of language model outputs is essential for safety and reliability. Prompting and finetuning are widely used to achieve these goals, but interpretability researchers have proposed a variety of representation-based techniques as well, including sparse autoencoders (SAEs), linear artificial tomography, supervised steering vectors, linear probes, and representation finetuning. At present, there is no benchmark for making direct comparisons between these proposals. Therefore, we introduce AxBench, a large-scale benchmark for steering and concept detection, and report experiments on Gemma-2-2B and 9B. For steering, we find that prompting outperforms all existing methods, followed by finetuning. For concept detection, representation-based methods such as difference-in-means, perform the best. On both evaluations, SAEs are not competitive. We introduce a novel weakly-supervised representational method (Rank-1 Representation Finetuning; ReFT-r1), which is competitive on both tasks while providing the interpretability advantages that prompting lacks. Along with AxBench, we train and publicly release SAE-scale feature dictionaries for ReFT-r1 and DiffMean.

Mechanistic interpretability aims to understand the computational mechanisms underlying neural networks' capabilities in order to accomplish concrete scientific and engineering goals. Progress in this field thus promises to provide greater assurance over AI system behavior and shed light on exciting scientific questions about the nature of intelligence. Despite recent progress toward these goals, there are many open problems in the field that require solutions before many scientific and practical benefits can be realized: Our methods require both conceptual and practical improvements to reveal deeper insights; we must figure out how best to apply our methods in pursuit of specific goals; and the field must grapple with socio-technical challenges that influence and are influenced by our work. This forward-facing review discusses the current frontier of mechanistic interpretability and the open problems that the field may benefit from prioritizing. This review collects the perspectives of its various authors and represents a synthesis of their views by Apollo Research on behalf of Schmidt Sciences. The perspectives presented here do not necessarily reflect the views of any individual author or the institutions with which they are affiliated.

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".

Although CLIPScore is a powerful generic metric that captures the similarity between a text and an image, it fails to distinguish between a caption that is meant to complement the information in an image and a description that is meant to replace an image entirely, e.g., for accessibility. We address this shortcoming by updating the CLIP model with the Concadia dataset to assign higher scores to descriptions than captions using parameter efficient fine-tuning and a loss objective derived from work on causal interpretability. This model correlates with the judgements of blind and low-vision people while preserving transfer capabilities and has interpretable structure that sheds light on the caption--description distinction.

Parameter-efficient finetuning (PEFT) methods seek to adapt large neural models via updates to a small number of weights. However, much prior interpretability work has shown that representations encode rich semantic information, suggesting that editing representations might be a more powerful alternative. We pursue this hypothesis by developing a family of Representation Finetuning (ReFT) methods. ReFT methods operate on a frozen base model and learn task-specific interventions on hidden representations. We define a strong instance of the ReFT family, Low-rank Linear Subspace ReFT (LoReFT), and we identify an ablation of this method that trades some performance for increased efficiency. Both are drop-in replacements for existing PEFTs and learn interventions that are 15x--65x more parameter-efficient than LoRA. We showcase LoReFT on eight commonsense reasoning tasks, four arithmetic reasoning tasks, instruction-tuning, and GLUE. In all these evaluations, our ReFTs deliver the best balance of efficiency and performance, and almost always outperform state-of-the-art PEFTs. We release a generic ReFT training library publicly at https://github.com/stanfordnlp/pyreft.

Interventions on model-internal states are fundamental operations in many areas of AI, including model editing, steering, robustness, and interpretability. To facilitate such research, we introduce $\textbf{pyvene}$, an open-source Python library that supports customizable interventions on a range of different PyTorch modules. $\textbf{pyvene}$ supports complex intervention schemes with an intuitive configuration format, and its interventions can be static or include trainable parameters. We show how $\textbf{pyvene}$ provides a unified and extensible framework for performing interventions on neural models and sharing the intervened upon models with others. We illustrate the power of the library via interpretability analyses using causal abstraction and knowledge localization. We publish our library through Python Package Index (PyPI) and provide code, documentation, and tutorials at https://github.com/stanfordnlp/pyvene.

Individual neurons participate in the representation of multiple high-level concepts. To what extent can different interpretability methods successfully disentangle these roles? To help address this question, we introduce RAVEL (Resolving Attribute-Value Entanglements in Language Models), a dataset that enables tightly controlled, quantitative comparisons between a variety of existing interpretability methods. We use the resulting conceptual framework to define the new method of Multi-task Distributed Alignment Search (MDAS), which allows us to find distributed representations satisfying multiple causal criteria. With Llama2-7B as the target language model, MDAS achieves state-of-the-art results on RAVEL, demonstrating the importance of going beyond neuron-level analyses to identify features distributed across activations. We release our benchmark at https://github.com/explanare/ravel.

We respond to the recent paper by Makelov et al. (2023), which reviews subspace interchange intervention methods like distributed alignment search (DAS; Geiger et al. 2023) and claims that these methods potentially cause "interpretability illusions". We first review Makelov et al. (2023)'s technical notion of what an "interpretability illusion" is, and then we show that even intuitive and desirable explanations can qualify as illusions in this sense. As a result, their method of discovering "illusions" can reject explanations they consider "non-illusory". We then argue that the illusions Makelov et al. (2023) see in practice are artifacts of their training and evaluation paradigms. We close by emphasizing that, though we disagree with their core characterization, Makelov et al. (2023)'s examples and discussion have undoubtedly pushed the field of interpretability forward.