mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Why Linear Interpretability Works: Invariant Subspaces as a Result of Architectural Constraints

arXiv 2602.09783 ↗First posted 10 Feb 2026cs.LG cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Linear probes and sparse autoencoders consistently recover meaningful structure from transformer representations -- yet why should such simple methods succeed in deep, nonlinear systems? We show this is not merely an empirical regularity but a consequence of architectural necessity: transformers communicate information through linear interfaces (attention OV circuits, unembedding matrices), and any semantic feature decoded through such an interface must occupy a context-invariant linear subspace. We formalize this as the Invariant Subspace Necessity theorem and derive the Self-Reference Property: tokens directly provide the geometric direction for their associated features, enabling zero-shot identification of semantic structure without labeled data or learned probes. Empirical validation in eight classification tasks and four model families confirms the alignment between class tokens and semantically related instances. Our framework provides a principled architectural explanation for why linear interpretability methods work, unifying linear probes and sparse autoencoders.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Feb 2026.

Builds on

24 of 37 references.

References · 24

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  3. 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,065
  4. 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,609
  5. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
  6. 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,309
  7. 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,279
  8. 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,259
  9. 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,239
  10. 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,130
  11. 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,046
  12. 2023Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Additioncited by 1,009
12 more
  1. 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 831
  2. 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 824
  3. 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 822
  4. 2015Deep Learning and the Information Bottleneck Principlecited by 793
  5. 2022Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasetscited by 599
  6. 2023Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lenscited by 579
  7. 2019On the Cross-lingual Transferability of Monolingual Representationscited by 575
  8. 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 442
  9. 2023The Reversal Curse: LLMs trained on "A is B" fail to learn "B is A"cited by 399
  10. 2025Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse Probingcited by 109
  11. 2024On the Origins of Linear Representations in Large Language Modelscited by 76
  12. 2024Interpreting Attention Layer Outputs with Sparse Autoencoderscited by 43

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.