CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Mar 20, 2026

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

arXiv AI Archived Mar 20, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2603.18353v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 18 Mar 2026] Interpretability without actionability: mechanistic methods cannot correct language model errors despite near-perfect internal representations Sanjay Basu, Sadiq Y. Patel, Parth Sheth, Bhairavi Muralidharan, Namrata Elamaran, Aakriti Kinra, John Morgan, Rajaie Batniji 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. Comments: 27 pages, 5 figures, 10 tables. Code available at this https URL Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) ACM classes: I.2.7; J.3 Cite as: arXiv:2603.18353 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2603.18353v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.18353 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Sanjay Basu [view email] [v1] Wed, 18 Mar 2026 23:31:05 UTC (127 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-03 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Mar 20, 2026
    Archived
    Mar 20, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗