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