ablate-cot-prediction-shared-sae-concepts-test-faithfulness TEC-0086 · proposedAblate CoT/prediction shared SAE concepts to test faithfulne
Encode the answer-position residual of a direct-prediction pass and a CoT pass with one shared sparse autoencoder, then zero the decoder contribution of the concepts active in both and measure the drop in answer probability.
Proposed. Filed by the drafting stage because a paper introduces or tests it. Nobody has vouched for it. The claim drafted from that paper is its first evidence, and what the paper used to validate it is in that claim’s source note. Say whether it held up for you, below.
Encode the answer-position residual of a direct-prediction pass and a CoT pass with one shared sparse autoencoder, then zero the decoder contribution of the concepts active in both and measure the drop in answer probability. Filed by the drafting stage from From Concept Alignment to Causal Grounding: An Intervention Test of Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness (2609.23065) with status proposed: the paper introduces or tests it, and the claim drafted from the paper is its first evidence. The paper validated it by: Compared against random-subset, prediction-only, and norm-matched ablation controls (all near zero effect), a completeness check adding prediction-only features (negligible increment), a top-k magnitude upper bound (only marginally higher), and two SAE width/sparsity configurations (Pearson r > 0.8 across configurations).. Nobody has vouched for it; add support or contest it on this page.
Does it work?
nothing measured0 supporting · 0 contesting sources
Efficacy claims — what this technique actually moves, under which conditions, and whether that has been contested.
No efficacy claim filed yet. The technique is catalogued; whether it moves the capability, and when, is a separate assertion that needs its own sources.
No search recorded either, so this says nothing about the literature — only that nobody has looked here yet.
Code
No repository linked yet. Contribute one.
Sources
Whether a technique works is a claim. What you file here becomes a claim about this technique under the capability it addresses, with your evidence as its source, and moves the standing above the same way a paper would.