SAEScientist-Bench:AI代理能否自主进行SAE可解释性研究
SAEScientist-Bench: Can AI Agents Conduct Autonomous SAE Interpretability Research?
这个基准测试了AI代理能否自主进行稀疏自编码器研究,发现代理能设计对比实验但常误解测量结果。
研究人员推出SAEScientist-Bench基准,测试AI代理是否能作为科学家使用SAE工具进行自主机制发现。该基准使用Gemma-2-9B-IT模型中的131K+特征,通过激活排名、对比文本概念选择性和因果转向三个维度评估代理性能。测试涵盖10种代理配置和20个任务,结果显示前沿代理具有真正的发现能力,但在因果生成转向方面仍远低于专家基线。
SAEScientist-Bench: Can AI Agents Conduct Autonomous SAE Interpretability Research?
While research on recursive self-improvement (RSI) has predominantly automated model training pipelines, reliable autonomous development demands a missing pillar: post-hoc monitoring and auditing to understand what models learn and ensure safe alignment. Mechanistic interpretability tools are essential to bridge this gap, among which Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) serve as a cornerstone by isolating interpretable features for model inspection and steering. In this paper, we introduce SAEScientist-Bench to evaluate whether AI agents can act as scientists utilizing SAE tools for autonomous mechanistic discovery. Given a target concept, an agent designs contrastive probes and navigates a Gemma Scope dictionary of 131K+ features in Gemma-2-9B-IT to discover the optimal feature, evaluated against curated expert reference features anchored on Neuronpedia across activation rank, concept selectivity on contrastive texts, and causal steering. Across 10 agent configurations and 20 tasks, frontier agents demonstrate genuine discovery capabilities and lead different evaluation dimensions, but remain well behind the expert baseline, approaching expert levels on separating target concepts from contrastive controls while lagging substantially in causal generation steering. Further analysis reveals that although agents can design contrasts to rule out spurious candidates, they frequently misinterpret experimental measurements. These results establish experimental model understanding as a measurable capability for closed-loop autonomous AI R&D. Our code is available at https://github.com/Trae1ounG/SAEScientist.