跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-07 16:24 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-06 13:12各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-06 16:36 — 2026-11-07 16:36(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-07 16:24最近发现新增版本:2026-11-06 13:12库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,055 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-07 16:22(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.08438

从内部理解AI:面向AI安全的机制可解释性现状

Understanding AI from the Inside: The State of Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety

Fazl Barez, Tung-Yu Wu, Hunar Batra, Gabriele Dominici, Florent Draye, Yanai Elazar, Damiano Fornasiere, Antía García 等 27 位作者

AI 速览:综述机制可解释性研究,探讨“理解模型内部机制是否真能让AI更安全”,并提出统一评估框架与六类研究取向。

Neural networks are likely to be among the most consequential artefacts in human history. As these systems become more capable and autonomous, their potential to cause societal harm also grows, making AI safety one of the defining challenges of our time. Yet we continue to build increasingly powerful systems without fully understanding how they work, how they will behave in unfamiliar situations, or how to reliably control them. Mechanistic interpretability offers a path towards understanding these systems by studying their internal representations and computations, with the aim of evaluating, predicting, and controlling behaviour. We survey mechanistic interpretability for AI safety in order to answer the question: Does understanding how models work actually make them safer? We place mechanistic interpretability in the broader context of interpretability research and compare its mechanistic evidence with behavioural evaluation. We introduce the foundations of mechanistic interpretability, including features, polysemanticity, transformer computation, and circuits, and survey methods for feature extraction and analysis, circuit discovery and causal verification, explaining intermediate representations in natural language, learning dynamics, and training-data attribution. Beyond surveying existing methods, we propose a unified framework for evaluating mechanistic interpretability claims and characterise six research orientations by their goals, assumptions, and trade-offs. Finally, we examine how mechanistic understanding can support AI safety, including knowledge editing, steering, and monitoring, and assess its limitations, failure modes, open problems, and relationship to behavioural safety measures. We also release a repository of code notebooks with worked examples that reproduce key findings from surveyed methods, allowing readers to build intuition through hands-on experimentation.

cs.CL · cs.AI · cs.LG
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.159ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

Make Mechanistic Interpretability Auditable: A Call to Develop Guidelines via Continuous Collaborative Reviewing

Michael Lan Martian, Narmeen Fatimah Oozeer, Chaithanya Bandi Northwestern University, Philip Quirke, Austin Meek University of Delaware, Fazl Barez University of Oxford, Amir Abdullah Thoughtworks

While mechanistic interpretability (MI) has produced important insights into neural network internals, the field has yet to establish a standardized system to audit experiments. As such, many of its findings remain underutilized in safety-critical applications such as medical AI and autonomous systems, as stakeholders cannot certify their validity. Recent work demonstrates this concretely: two papers found conflicting conclusions for the same behavior, and a third study revealed that both were partially correct but incomparable due to methodological inconsistencies. Without standardized auditing, such ambiguities hinder adoption in high-stakes contexts requiring strong correctness guarantees. We call for the MI community to work towards developing a novel reviewing system that complements peer review via: (1) Continuous reviewing supported by a Collaborative Reviewing Platform where meta-science results and discussions (such as critiques, negative results, post-hoc extensions, reproductions, replications, and partial results) that fit outside of papers are organized and discussed, allowing for comments and revisions to be made at any time (2) Generalizing good practices found on this platform into expert-verified guidelines and protocols to improve auditing efficiency, and (3) Source-based auditing systems that track arguments which claims depend on. This position paper encourages constructive debate over the necessity, design and implementation of such a framework, providing early concrete examples to help catalyze these dialogues. Overall, we propose that auditing MI itself is essential for its application in AI safety, industry, and governance.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗