mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

FADE: Why Bad Descriptions Happen to Good Features

arXiv 2502.16994 ↗First posted 24 Feb 2025cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 13

On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → SAE features and their applications

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent advances in mechanistic interpretability have highlighted the potential of automating interpretability pipelines in analyzing the latent representations within LLMs. While this may enhance our understanding of internal mechanisms, the field lacks standardized evaluation methods for assessing the validity of discovered features. We attempt to bridge this gap by introducing FADE: Feature Alignment to Description Evaluation, a scalable model-agnostic framework for automatically evaluating feature-to-description alignment. FADE evaluates alignment across four key metrics - Clarity, Responsiveness, Purity, and Faithfulness - and systematically quantifies the causes of the misalignment between features and their descriptions. We apply FADE to analyze existing open-source feature descriptions and assess key components of automated interpretability pipelines, aiming to enhance the quality of descriptions. Our findings highlight fundamental challenges in generating feature descriptions, particularly for SAEs compared to MLP neurons, providing insights into the limitations and future directions of automated interpretability. We release FADE as an open-source package at: https://github.com/brunibrun/FADE

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in SAE features and their applications, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 14 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Feb 2025.

Builds on

14 of 48 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoders19 Jul

Other references · 13

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,411
  3. 2024The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scalecited by 1,160
  4. 2023LMSYS-Chat-1M: A Large-Scale Real-World LLM Conversation Datasetcited by 461
  5. 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 394
  6. 2024A Mechanistic Understanding of Alignment Algorithms: A Case Study on DPO and Toxicitycited by 185
  7. 2024Towards Principled Evaluations of Sparse Autoencoders for Interpretability and Controlcited by 86
  8. 2024Erasing Conceptual Knowledge from Language Modelscited by 34
  9. 2023Labeling Neural Representations with Inverse Recognitioncited by 32
  10. 2025Automated Interpretability Metrics Do Not Distinguish Trained and Random Transformerscited by 30
  11. 2025Mechanistic understanding and validation of large AI models with SemanticLenscited by 29
  12. 2024CoSy: Evaluating Textual Explanations of Neuronscited by 17
1 more
  1. 2024Analyzing (In)Abilities of SAEs via Formal Languagescited by 17

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 6; 2026: 7.

13 papers.

Sort:

By area:

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Clarity: The Flexibility-Interpretability Trade-Off in Sparsity-aware Concept Bottleneck Models
  2. 2026When the Coffee Feature Activates on Coffins: An Analysis of Feature Extraction and Steering for Mechanistic Interpretability
  3. 2026Descriptive Collision in Sparse Autoencoder Auto-Interpretability: When One Explanation Describes Many Features
  4. 2024A Multimodal Automated Interpretability Agent
  5. 2026Representation as a Bottleneck for Mechanistic Interpretability: The Manifestation Unit Protocol
  6. 2026Singular Vectors of Attention Heads Align with Features
  7. 2023FIND: A Function Description Benchmark for Evaluating Interpretability Methods
  8. 2025ConceptViz: A Visual Analytics Approach for Exploring Concepts in Large Language Models