Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the impact of different training methodologies on the interpretability of model organisms (MOs) used for evaluating interpretability techniques in language models. By constructing a suite of MOs with varying training approaches, including standard post-hoc supervised fine-tuning and more integrated training methods, the authors benchmark several interpretability techniques. The key finding reveals that the interpretability of MOs is highly dependent on the training objective and methodology, with integrated training often resulting in less interpretable models compared to traditional post-hoc methods, challenging the validity of current MOs as proxies for interpretability assessments.
Interpretability of model organisms can significantly diminish when using more realistic training methods, raising questions about their reliability as proxies for evaluating interpretability techniques.
Model organisms (MOs) - language models trained to exhibit undesired or unnatural behaviours - are frequently used as testbeds for evaluating white-box interpretability techniques. Current MOs are typically constructed via post-hoc supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on behavioural transcripts or synthetic documents. Prior research has shown that interpretability methods can easily identify hidden behaviours in these MOs. However, recent work suggests that such post-hoc training methods may make interpretability unrealistically easy. We investigate this claim by constructing a suite of 54 $\verb|OLMo2-1B|$- and $\verb|gemma-3-1b-it|$-based MOs trained with seven different techniques, including standard post-hoc SFT, post-hoc DPO, and more realistic integration of MO data into the OLMo post-training DPO phase. We use these MO variants to benchmark activation oracles, activation steering, logit lens, and sparse autoencoders. Our findings show that (i) MO interpretability depends strongly on training objective, target behaviour, model architecture, and training data generation pipeline; (ii) substantial variance remains even after controlling for differences in the strength of target behaviour expression; and (iii) our more realistic $\textit{integrated training}$ often yields less interpretable MOs than standard post-hoc methods. Our results cast substantial doubt on the validity of current MOs as interpretability proxies.
