Capturing Polysemanticity with PRISM: A Multi-Concept Feature Description Framework
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Automated interpretability research aims to identify concepts encoded in neural network features to enhance human understanding of model behavior. Within the context of large language models (LLMs) for natural language processing (NLP), current automated neuron-level feature description methods face two key challenges: limited robustness and the assumption that each neuron encodes a single concept (monosemanticity), despite increasing evidence of polysemanticity. This assumption restricts the expressiveness of feature descriptions and limits their ability to capture the full range of behaviors encoded in model internals. To address this, we introduce Polysemantic FeatuRe Identification and Scoring Method (PRISM), a novel framework specifically designed to capture the complexity of features in LLMs. Unlike approaches that assign a single description per neuron, common in many automated interpretability methods in NLP, PRISM produces more nuanced descriptions that account for both monosemantic and polysemantic behavior. We apply PRISM to LLMs and, through extensive benchmarking against existing methods, demonstrate that our approach produces more accurate and faithful feature descriptions, improving both overall description quality (via a description score) and the ability to capture distinct concepts when polysemanticity is present (via a polysemanticity score).
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 57 of its 86 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2025.
Builds on
57 of 86 references.
References · 57
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2024GPT-4o System Cardcited by 4,588
- 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,224
- 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,462
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
- 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,165
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 971
- 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 839
- 2022BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedurecited by 801
38 more
- 2020Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformerscited by 775
- 2023Towards General Text Embeddings with Multi-stage Contrastive Learningcited by 723
- 2024Phi-4 Technical Reportcited by 711
- 2017Network Dissection: Quantifying Interpretability of Deep Visual Representationscited by 708
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 553
- 2018e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanationscited by 468
- 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 394
- 2025Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 179
- 2020Compositional Explanations of Neuronscited by 172
- 2020Unsupervised Domain Clusters in Pretrained Language Modelscited by 160
- 2024Llama Scope: Extracting Millions of Features from Llama-3.1-8B with Sparse Autoencoderscited by 143
- 2020Higher-Order Explanations of Graph Neural Networks via Relevant Walkscited by 138
- 2024Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language Modelscited by 113
- 2021Inducing Causal Structure for Interpretable Neural Networkscited by 110
- 2024Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?cited by 101
- 2022XAI for Transformers: Better Explanations through Conservative Propagationcited by 100
- 2021An Interpretability Illusion for BERTcited by 97
- 2023Can Large Language Models Explain Themselves? A Study of LLM-Generated Self-Explanationscited by 90
- 2024Truth is Universal: Robust Detection of Lies in LLMscited by 79
- 2024Concept Induction: Analyzing Unstructured Text with High-Level Concepts Using LLooMcited by 78
- 2022Polysemanticity and Capacity in Neural Networkscited by 77
- 2023Explaining black box text modules in natural language with language modelscited by 62
- 2023Goal-Driven Explainable Clustering via Language Descriptionscited by 58
- 2023From task structures to world models: What do LLMs know?cited by 46
- 2023Rigorously Assessing Natural Language Explanations of Neuronscited by 45
- 2025Enhancing Automated Interpretability with Output-Centric Feature Descriptionscited by 41
- 2019From Clustering to Cluster Explanations via Neural Networkscited by 34
- 2020Building and Interpreting Deep Similarity Modelscited by 34
- 2023Labeling Neural Representations with Inverse Recognitioncited by 32
- 2020Do Neural Language Models Show Preferences for Syntactic Formalisms?cited by 30
- 2025Mechanistic understanding and validation of large AI models with SemanticLenscited by 29
- 2024Chain-of-Thought Unfaithfulness as Disguised Accuracycited by 28
- 2022Disentangled Explanations of Neural Network Predictions by Finding Relevant Subspacescited by 25
- 2024Understanding polysemanticity in neural networks through coding theorycited by 17
- 2024CoSy: Evaluating Textual Explanations of Neuronscited by 17
- 2023Evaluating statistical language models as pragmatic reasonerscited by 15
- 2022DORA: Exploring Outlier Representations in Deep Neural Networkscited by 14
- 2024Latent Concept-based Explanation of NLP Modelscited by 13
50 most cited of 57 All 57 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 6.
10 papers.
- 2025RelP: Faithful and Efficient Circuit Discovery in Language Models via Relevance Patchingcited by 13
- 2025Circuit Insights: Towards Interpretability Beyond Activationscited by 5
- 2025Interpreting Language Models Through Concept Descriptions: A Surveycited by 3
- 2025Semantic Regexes: Auto-Interpreting LLM Features with a Structured Languagecited by 2
- 2026Evaluating the Interpretability of Sparse Autoencoders with Concept Annotationscited by 2
- 2026MonoLoss: A Training Objective for Interpretable Monosemantic Representationscited by 1
- 2026How Far Do Auto-Interpretation Labels Generalize: A Controlled Study Across Languages, Scripts, and Rewordingscited by 1
- 2026Training, Reading, and Editing Legible Transformerscited by 1
- 2026LINE: LLM-based Iterative Neuron Explanations for Vision Modelscited by 0
- 2026Sparse Transformer: a Controlled Testbed for Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 0
- 2026Sparse Transformer: a Controlled Testbed for Mechanistic Interpretability14 Oct 2026
- 2026Training, Reading, and Editing Legible Transformers9 Jul 2026
- 2026Evaluating the Interpretability of Sparse Autoencoders with Concept Annotations23 Jun 2026
- 2026How Far Do Auto-Interpretation Labels Generalize: A Controlled Study Across Languages, Scripts, and Rewordings29 May 2026
- 2026LINE: LLM-based Iterative Neuron Explanations for Vision Models9 Apr 2026
- 2026MonoLoss: A Training Objective for Interpretable Monosemantic Representations12 Feb 2026
- 2025Circuit Insights: Towards Interpretability Beyond Activations16 Oct 2025
- 2025Semantic Regexes: Auto-Interpreting LLM Features with a Structured Language7 Oct 2025
- 2025Interpreting Language Models Through Concept Descriptions: A Survey1 Oct 2025
- 2025RelP: Faithful and Efficient Circuit Discovery in Language Models via Relevance Patching28 Aug 2025