From Isolation to Entanglement: When Do Interpretability Methods Identify and Disentangle Known Concepts?
Aaron Mueller, Andrew Lee, Shruti Joshi, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Dhanya Sridhar, Patrik Reizinger
Abstract
A goal of interpretability is to recover disentangled representations of latent concepts (features) from the activations of neural networks. The quality of features is typically evaluated in isolation, and under implicit independence assumptions that may not hold in practice. Thus, it is unclear to what extent common featurization methods such as sparse autoencoders (SAEs) and probes disentangle one concept from another. We propose a multi-concept evaluation setting using concepts including sentiment, domain, voice, and tense. We evaluate how well featurizers produce disentangled representations of each concept, observing that features are typically sensitive to only one concept, but also that concepts are distributed across many features. Then, we steer these features, measuring whether each concept is independently manipulable, and whether features interact. Even in idealized settings, steering a feature often affects many concepts, despite a near absence of interaction effects. These results suggest that correlational metrics are insufficient to establish steering selectivity, and that demonstrating that two features operate in separate spaces is insufficient to claim that they will be selective for one concept. These results underscore the importance of multi-concept evaluations in interpretability research. 1
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 f807d08c-1946-4514-8df3-35805f1d52bfBuilds on25
- Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and ScalingStella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Gregory Anthony, Herbie Bradley et al.ICML 2023 · 1,822 citations
- Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single DirectionAndy Arditi, Oscar Obeso, Aaquib Syed, Daniel Paleka et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 1,166 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
- Self-Supervised Learning with Data Augmentations Provably Isolates Content from StyleJulius von Kügelgen, Yash Sharma, Luigi Gresele, Wieland Brendel et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 421 citations
- Weakly supervised causal representation learningJohann Brehmer, Pim de Haan, Phillip Lippe, Taco S. CohenNeurIPS 2022 · 196 citations
Related papers
- The Deleuzian Representation HypothesisClément Cornet, Romaric Besançon, Hervé Le BorgneICLR 2026
- Projecting Assumptions: The Duality Between Sparse Autoencoders and Concept GeometrySai Sumedh R. Hindupur, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Thomas Fel, Demba BaNeurIPS 2025 · 65 citations
- Rethinking Evaluation of Sparse Autoencoders through the Representation of Polysemous WordsGouki Minegishi, Hiroki Furuta, Yusuke Iwasawa, Yutaka MatsuoICLR 2025
- Measuring and Guiding MonosemanticityRuben Härle, Felix Friedrich, Manuel Brack, Björn Deiseroth et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 12 citations
- Evaluating SAE interpretability without generating explanationsGonçalo Paulo, Nora BelroseICLR 2026 · 2 citations
