Critical Percolation as a Synthetic Data Model for Interpretability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Neural networks learn features that reflect the hierarchical, multi-scale structure of natural data. Synthetic datasets used to evaluate interpretability methods typically lack this structure, limiting their value as realistic toy models. To close this gap, we introduce a family of synthetic datasets consisting of hierarchical functions defined on critical mean-field percolation clusters embedded in a high-dimensional data space. The percolation data consists of sparse, low-dimensional fractal clusters with a power-law size distribution. Latent variables modeling a taxonomic hierarchy generate each data point's target value. The data model is analytically tractable with known critical exponents that fix its properties without requiring hyperparameter tuning. We leverage a mapping between percolation clusters, random trees, and additive coalescence to propose an almost linear-time algorithm to jointly sample a random tree and its hierarchical latent decomposition, enabling data generation at arbitrary scale. Using probing experiments, we find that the model's ground-truth latent variables can be linearly decoded from neural network activations. Together, sparsity, self-similarity, power-law statistics, and analytical tractability make critical percolation a principled testbed for interpretability research.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 57 of its 102 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2026.
Builds on
57 of 102 references.
References · 57
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 3,019
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,353
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 971
- 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 839
- 2017Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empiricallycited by 582
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 553
- 2020Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modelingcited by 522
- 2024Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety -- A Reviewcited by 422
38 more
- 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 394
- 2021Explaining Neural Scaling Lawscited by 363
- 2023Finding Neurons in a Haystack: Case Studies with Sparse Probingcited by 334
- 2023Physics of Language Models: Part 3.1, Knowledge Storage and Extractioncited by 270
- 2022Transformers Learn Shortcuts to Automatacited by 268
- 2018Estimating the intrinsic dimension of datasets by a minimal neighborhood informationcited by 250
- 2020Spectrum Dependent Learning Curves in Kernel Regression and Wide Neural Networkscited by 200
- 2026Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnetcited by 191
- 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 160
- 2025Learning Multi-Level Features with Matryoshka Sparse Autoencoderscited by 143
- 2023The Quantization Model of Neural Scalingcited by 138
- 2022A Solvable Model of Neural Scaling Lawscited by 116
- 2021Pre-training without Natural Imagescited by 100
- 2024A Phase Transition in Diffusion Models Reveals the Hierarchical Nature of Datacited by 93
- 2021Learning to See by Looking at Noisecited by 92
- 2025Sparse Autoencoders Do Not Find Canonical Units of Analysiscited by 88
- 2021Learning Curve Theorycited by 85
- 2023Physics of Language Models: Part 1, Learning Hierarchical Language Structurescited by 83
- 2023How Deep Neural Networks Learn Compositional Data: The Random Hierarchy Modelcited by 71
- 2024Scaling and renormalization in high-dimensional regressioncited by 50
- 2024A Mechanistic Analysis of a Transformer Trained on a Symbolic Multi-Step Reasoning Taskcited by 49
- 2025From Flat to Hierarchical: Extracting Sparse Representations with Matching Pursuitcited by 49
- 2024Towards a theory of how the structure of language is acquired by deep neural networkscited by 39
- 2026There Will Be a Scientific Theory of Deep Learningcited by 29
- 2024A Percolation Model of Emergence: Analyzing Transformers Trained on a Formal Languagecited by 26
- 2019Is Deeper Better only when Shallow is Good?cited by 24
- 2026Deriving Neural Scaling Laws from the statistics of natural languagecited by 23
- 2024An exactly solvable model for emergence and scaling laws in the multitask sparse parity problemcited by 22
- 2024How transformers learn structured data: insights from hierarchical filteringcited by 18
- 2024Analyzing (In)Abilities of SAEs via Formal Languagescited by 17
- 2025You Are What You Eat -- AI Alignment Requires Understanding How Data Shapes Structure and Generalisationcited by 17
- 2025Learning curves theory for hierarchically compositional data with power-law distributed featurescited by 17
- 2024Neural Scaling Laws Rooted in the Data Distributioncited by 15
- 2025Understanding LLM Behaviors via Compression: Data Generation, Knowledge Acquisition and Scaling Lawscited by 15
- 2024Scaling Backwards: Minimal Synthetic Pre-training?cited by 14
- 2024How Diffusion Models Learn to Factorize and Composecited by 13
- 2025A Survey of Dimension Estimation Methodscited by 12
- 2025Understanding sparse autoencoder scaling in the presence of feature manifoldscited by 11
50 most cited of 57 All 57 (JSON)
Built on by
Not cited yet.