# Evaluating the Causal Faithfulness of SHAP as a Candidate Attribution Method for SAE Features

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.17898 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17898/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in SAE features and their applications, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability.
- Builds on 8 of its 13 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- Mechanistic interpretability / [SAE features and their applications](https://mlsanity.com/mechinterp/sae-features-and-their-applications/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.08600/) (2023)
- [Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.01644/) (2016)
- [Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03685/) (2020)
- [Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04093/) (2024)
- [Attribution Patching Outperforms Automated Circuit Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10348/) (2023)
- [Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.29358/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Sparse autoencoders decompose language model representations into interpretable features, but feature interpretation in this literature remains predominantly correlational. Attribution methods offer more direct estimates of feature influence, yet their faithfulness to actual causal effects has not been systematically evaluated in the SAE setting. We apply SHAP-based attribution to SAE latent features and evaluate it against direct causal intervention, using sentiment classification on SST-2 with GPT-2 Small and a 32,768-feature layer-7 SAE as a testbed. We compare SHAP to Integrated Gradients, Gradient×Input, and probe-weight baselines across linear and MLP probe arms, scoring each against feature ablation and activation steering measured through the language model's own logit difference. Most faithfulness associations we measure do not survive multiple-comparison correction, and attribution methods that agree strongly with one another (ρ = 0.42--0.80) agree poorly with measured causal effects, indicating that inter-method agreement is not evidence of causal faithfulness. Two effects hold under control. First, local per-example attribution retains a directional advantage over global averaged attribution, while its apparent importance advantage is explained by feature activity rather than superior causal ranking. Second, under known-ground-truth minimal pairs, attribution recovers inserted sentiment signal well above chance (AUROC 0.792) but fails to localize deletions (AUROC 0.520), suggesting that these methods detect the presence of a feature's influence more reliably than its absence. We argue that importance faithfulness and directional faithfulness are separable properties requiring separate evaluation, and that attribution agreement should not substitute for causal validation.