AIMar 18

Interpretability without actionability: mechanistic methods cannot correct language model errors despite near-perfect internal representations

arXiv:2603.1835375.38 citationsh-index: 11
Predicted impact top 42% in AI · last 90 daysOriginality Incremental advance
AI Analysis

This challenges AI safety frameworks by showing that interpretability does not reliably enable error correction, with implications for deploying language models in high-stakes domains like healthcare.

The study tested whether mechanistic interpretability methods could correct false-negative errors in language models using clinical vignettes, finding that despite near-perfect internal knowledge (98.2% AUROC), output sensitivity was only 45.1%, and methods like concept bottleneck steering corrected only 20% of errors while disrupting many correct detections.

Language models encode task-relevant knowledge in internal representations that far exceeds their output performance, but whether mechanistic interpretability methods can bridge this knowledge-action gap has not been systematically tested. We compared four mechanistic interpretability methods -- concept bottleneck steering (Steerling-8B), sparse autoencoder feature steering, logit lens with activation patching, and linear probing with truthfulness separator vector steering (Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct) -- for correcting false-negative triage errors using 400 physician-adjudicated clinical vignettes (144 hazards, 256 benign). Linear probes discriminated hazardous from benign cases with 98.2% AUROC, yet the model's output sensitivity was only 45.1%, a 53-percentage-point knowledge-action gap. Concept bottleneck steering corrected 20% of missed hazards but disrupted 53% of correct detections, indistinguishable from random perturbation (p=0.84). SAE feature steering produced zero effect despite 3,695 significant features. TSV steering at high strength corrected 24% of missed hazards while disrupting 6% of correct detections, but left 76% of errors uncorrected. Current mechanistic interpretability methods cannot reliably translate internal knowledge into corrected outputs, with implications for AI safety frameworks that assume interpretability enables effective error correction.

Foundations

The foundational work for this paper's niche, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on it — not by global fame.

Your Notes