Towards Best Practices of Activation Patching in Language Models: Metrics and Methods
Fred Zhang, Neel Nanda
Abstract
Mechanistic interpretability seeks to understand the internal mechanisms of machine learning models, where localization -- identifying the important model components -- is a key step. Activation patching, also known as causal tracing or interchange intervention, is a standard technique for this task (Vig et al., 2020), but the literature contains many variants with little consensus on the choice of hyperparameters or methodology. In this work, we systematically examine the impact of methodological details in activation patching, including evaluation metrics and corruption methods. In several settings of localization and circuit discovery in language models, we find that varying these hyperparameters could lead to disparate interpretability results. Backed by empirical observations, we give conceptual arguments for why certain metrics or methods may be preferred. Finally, we provide recommendations for the best practices of activation patching going forwards.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 74cb7d6c-6c62-4e30-b4eb-9b500f38968fCited by top-tier papers88
- Transcoders find interpretable LLM feature circuitsJacob Dunefsky, Philippe Chlenski, Neel NandaNeurIPS 2024 · 222 citations
- Patchscopes: A Unifying Framework for Inspecting Hidden Representations of Language ModelsAsma Ghandeharioun, Avi Caciularu, Adam Pearce, Lucas Dixon et al.ICML 2024 · 197 citations
- Finding Transformer Circuits With Edge PruningAdithya Bhaskar, Alexander Wettig, Dan Friedman, Danqi ChenNeurIPS 2024 · 72 citations
- LLM Circuit Analyses Are Consistent Across Training and ScaleCurt Tigges, Michael Hanna, Qinan Yu, Stella BidermanNeurIPS 2024 · 71 citations
- Language Models Are Capable of Metacognitive Monitoring and Control of Their Internal ActivationsJi-An Li, Huadong Xiong, Robert C. Wilson, Marcelo G. Mattar et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 49 citations
Builds on27
- Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTKevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, Yonatan BelinkovNeurIPS 2022 · 3,415 citations
- Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language ModelKenneth Li, Oam Patel, Fernanda B. Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 1,549 citations
- Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language ModelsRobert Huben, Hoagy Cunningham, Logan Riggs Smith, Aidan Ewart et al.ICLR 2024 · 1,072 citations
- Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic InterpretabilityArthur Conmy, Augustine N. Mavor-Parker, Aengus Lynch, Stefan Heimersheim et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 861 citations
- Investigating Gender Bias in Language Models Using Causal Mediation AnalysisJesse Vig, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yonatan Belinkov, Sharon Qian et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 851 citations
Related papers
- MIB: A Mechanistic Interpretability BenchmarkAaron Mueller, Atticus Geiger, Sarah Wiegreffe, Dana Arad et al.ICML 2025
- Is This the Subspace You Are Looking for? An Interpretability Illusion for Subspace Activation PatchingAleksandar Makelov, Georg Lange, Atticus Geiger, Neel NandaICLR 2024 · 48 citations
- Mechanistic Interpretability as Statistical Estimation: A Variance AnalysisMaxime Méloux, François Portet, Maxime PeyrardICML 2026 · 13 citations
- EAP-GP: Mitigating Saturation Effect in Gradient-based Automated Circuit IdentificationLin Zhang, Wenshuo Dong, Zhuoran Zhang, Shu Yang et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 26 citations
- Towards Faithful Natural Language Explanations: A Study Using Activation Patching in Large Language ModelsWei Jie Yeo, Ranjan Satapathy, Erik CambriaEMNLP 2025 · 2 citations
