CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Mar 23, 2026

Pitfalls in Evaluating Interpretability Agents

arXiv AI Archived Mar 23, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2603.20101v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automated interpretability systems aim to reduce the need for human labor and scale analysis to increasingly large models and diverse tasks. Recent efforts toward this goal leverage large language models (LLMs) at increasing levels of autonomy, ranging from fixed one-shot workflows to fully autonomous interpretability agents. This shift creates a corresponding need to scale evaluation approaches to keep pace with both the volume and complexity of g

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 20 Mar 2026] Pitfalls in Evaluating Interpretability Agents Tal Haklay, Nikhil Prakash, Sana Pandey, Antonio Torralba, Aaron Mueller, Jacob Andreas, Tamar Rott Shaham, Yonatan Belinkov Automated interpretability systems aim to reduce the need for human labor and scale analysis to increasingly large models and diverse tasks. Recent efforts toward this goal leverage large language models (LLMs) at increasing levels of autonomy, ranging from fixed one-shot workflows to fully autonomous interpretability agents. This shift creates a corresponding need to scale evaluation approaches to keep pace with both the volume and complexity of generated explanations. We investigate this challenge in the context of automated circuit analysis -- explaining the roles of model components when performing specific tasks. To this end, we build an agentic system in which a research agent iteratively designs experiments and refines hypotheses. When evaluated against human expert explanations across six circuit analysis tasks in the literature, the system appears competitive. However, closer examination reveals several pitfalls of replication-based evaluation: human expert explanations can be subjective or incomplete, outcome-based comparisons obscure the research process, and LLM-based systems may reproduce published findings via memorization or informed guessing. To address some of these pitfalls, we propose an unsupervised intrinsic evaluation based on the functional interchangeability of model components. Our work demonstrates fundamental challenges in evaluating complex automated interpretability systems and reveals key limitations of replication-based evaluation. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) MSC classes: 68T50 ACM classes: I.2.7 Cite as: arXiv:2603.20101 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2603.20101v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.20101 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Tal Haklay [view email] [v1] Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:27:17 UTC (877 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 23, 2026
    Archived
    Mar 23, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗