arXiv:2607. 14111v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Can small language models detect and report on perturbations their own internal activations?
By Ely Hahami, Ishaan Sinha, Lavik Jain
arXiv:2608. 09928v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit strong visual understanding, yet the internal features that cause these behaviors remain difficult to identify, audit, or control.
By Hunar Batra, Lachin Naghashyar, Ashkan Khakzar, Philip Torr, Christian Schroeder de Witt, Constantin Venhoff, Ronald Clark
arXiv:2609.18961v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Mechanistic interpretability identifies sparse subsets of heads and MLP blocks that carry specific behaviors. We ask whether such causal signals can gu...
By Son Ha Xuan, Phat T. Tran-Truong, Xuan-Bach Le
arXiv:2606. 08365v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sparse autoencoder (SAE) features are increasingly used to steer language models, but feature steering is rarely clean: the same intervention can behave inconsistently across contexts and perturb unrelated features.
By Evan Duan
arXiv:2607. 19386v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Cross-paper comparison of sparse autoencoder (SAE) interpretability often relies on autointerpretability scores.
By Sinie van der Ben, Neele Roch, Anna Hedstr\"om, Mennatallah El-Assady
The paper investigates image tokenizers as the visual language of unified multimodal models by creating a controlled autoregressive testbed that tracks task‑specific validation losses during multimodal continual pretraining across text, image, text‑to‑image, and image‑to‑text predictions. It shows that losses must be analyzed by task, that the loss–performance relationship varies with the token space, and that better reconstruction does not always lead to stronger downstream performance. The study also demonstrates how tokenizer design choices—such as discriminator use, semantic supervision, and vocabulary size—affect joint modeling and downstream results.