arXiv preprint ·
Evaluating the Causal Faithfulness of SHAP as a Candidate Attribution Method for SAE Features
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
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$\times$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.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
Everyone Was Right: Lexical Representations in Language Models Are Both Abstract and Holistic
TopicMerge: A Divide and Conquer Approach to Topic Modeling
Many Steps into One: Reasoning Contraction and the Limits of Safe Memory Reuse for LLM Agents
LLM-jp-4 Technical Report
Reference Wording Shapes Retrieval of Robot Task Instructions
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.