Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Investigates measurement effectiveness for interpreting mechanisms in controlled settings, suggesting new avenues for analysis.
Mechanistic interpretability seeks quantities that a model does not expose directly: represented states, component effects, interactions, and responses to interventions. Patching, gradients, Hessian-vector products, and subset interventions obtain different measurements under different access assumptions and may target different quantities. We formulate their shared measurement problem as mechanistic tomography: the design and analysis of measurements for recovering internal mechanisms and intervention effects. For a chosen basis and intervention family, each measurement records an intervention, an unknown effect map, and the response that the chosen linear model misses. This gives methods with different targets a common set of questions and a practical procedure: begin with the least costly available measurements, test predictions on held-out interventions at the intended scale, calibrate simple finite-scale mismatch, and expand the measurement family when structured residuals remain. The paper develops results on measurement error, perturbation design, calibration dimension, sparse aggregate recovery, and interaction-aware measurement. It validates the framework in controlled belief-state and planted-effect models, Tracr programs, and GPT-2-small IOI. Control serves as the principal validation setting because an estimate that guides an intervention acts as an observer, making estimation error consequential. Preprint. An arXiv version is forthcoming.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vijay Erramilli (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: