Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

Interpretability without actionability: mechanistic methods cannot correct language model errors despite near-perfect internal representations

Language models encode task-relevant knowledge in internal representations that far exceeds their output performance, but whether mechanistic interpretability methods can bridge this knowledge-action gap has not been systematically tested. We compared four mechanistic interpretability methods -- concept bottleneck steering (Steerling-8B), sparse autoencoder feature steering, logit lens with activation patching, and linear probing with truthfulness separator vector steering (Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct) -- for correcting false-negative triage errors using 400 physician-adjudicated clinical vignettes (144 hazards, 256 benign). Linear probes discriminated hazardous from benign cases with 98.2% AURO...

AuthorsSanjay Basu, Sadiq Y. Patel, Parth Sheth et al.
Primary categorycs.AI
Published18 March 2026
Last updated at source18 March 2026
cs.AI
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/b4622327-5378-4eb8-9468-113df39118d6" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.