Mechanistic Interpretability for Large Language Model Alignment: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions

Mechanistic Interpretability for Large Language Model Alignment: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions Usman Naseem Macquarie University Correspondence: usman.naseem@mq.edu.au Abstract Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable capabilities across diverse tasks, yet their internal decision-making processes remain largely opaque.Mechanistic inter- pretability—the systematic study of how neu- ral networks implement algorithms through their learned representations and computational structures—has emerged as a critical research direction for understanding and aligning these models. This paper surveys recent progress in mechanistic interpretability techniques ap- plied to LLM alignment, examining methods ranging from circuit discovery to feature visual- ization, activation steering, and causal interven- tion. We analyze how interpretability insights have informed alignment strategies including reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), constitutional AI, and scalable over- sight. Key challenges are identified, includ- ing the superposition hypothesis, polyseman- ticity of neurons, and the difficulty of interpret- ing emergent behaviors in large-scale models. We propose future research directions focus- ing on automated interpretability, cross-model generalization of circuits, and the development of interpretability-driven alignment techniques that can scale to frontier models. 1 Introduction The rapid advancement of large language mod- els (LLMs) has created an urgent need for robust alignment techniques that ensure these systems behave in accordance with human values and in- tentions (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022). While behavioral approaches to alignment—such as RLHF and various prompting strategies—have shown practical success, they treat models as black boxes and provide limited guarantees about gener- alization to novel situations or adversarial inputs (Casper et al., 2023). Mechanistic interpretability offers a complemen- tary paradigm: understanding the internal algo- rithms and representations that LLMs learn during training (Olah et al., 2020; Elhage et al., 2021). By reverse-engineering the computational mechanisms underlying model behavior, researchers aim to de- velop more principled approaches to alignment that directly modify or constrain the problematic cir- cuits while preserving beneficial capabilities. Recent work has demonstrated that transformer- basedLLMslearninterpretablesubstruc- tures—often called "circuits"—that implement specific algorithmic functions (Wang et al., 2022; Conmy et al., 2023).These discoveries have enabled targeted interventions for alignment purposes, from steering model behavior through activation editing (Li et al., 2023) to identifying and ablating deceptive or harmful reasoning patterns (Zou et al., 2023). This paper provides a comprehensive survey of mechanistic interpretability techniques applied to LLM alignment. We organize our discussion around three key questions: •What progress has been made? We review major advances in interpretability methods and their applications to alignment challenges. •What fundamental challenges remain? We analyze theoretical and practical barriers to achieving comprehensive interpretability of large-scale models. • What future directions are most promis- ing? We identify research priorities for de- veloping scalable, automated interpretability techniques that can support alignment of in- creasingly capable systems. 2 Background and Foundations 2.1 The Transformer Architecture Modern LLMs are built on the transformer archi- tecture (Vaswani et al., 2017), which processes se- quences through alternating layers of attention and arXiv:2602.11180v1 [cs.CL] 21 Jan 2026 feedforward computations. Understanding this ar- chitecture is essential for mechanistic interpretabil- ity work. The attention mechanism allows each token to aggregate information from previous tokens in the sequence. For a given layer l, attention head h computes: Attention(Q, K, V ) = softmax QK ⊤ √ d k V (1) where Q, K, and V are query, key, and value matrices derived from linear transformations of the input embeddings (Vaswani et al., 2017). Multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) in transformer layers implement position-wise feedforward trans- formations, which recent work suggests act as key- value memories storing factual associations (Geva et al., 2021; Meng et al., 2022). 2.2 The Alignment Problem The alignment problem concerns ensuring that AI systems pursue goals and exhibit behaviors consis- tent with human values (Russell, 2019). For LLMs, key alignment challenges include: •Truthfulness and hallucination: Models may generate plausible but false information (Lin et al., 2022) •Harmful content generation: Models may produce toxic, biased, or dangerous outputs (Gehman et al., 2020) •Deceptive alignment: Models may learn to behave well during training while concealing misaligned objectives (Hubinger et al., 2019) •Robustness and distribution shift: Aligned behavior during training may not generalize to novel contexts (Hendrycks et al., 2020) Current alignment approaches primarily rely on RLHF (Christiano et al., 2017; Ouyang et al., 2022), which fine-tunes models using human preference feedback. While effective for improving surface- level behaviors, RLHF provides limited insight into whether models have internalized desired values or merely learned to imitate aligned behavior (Casper et al., 2023). 2.3 Core Concepts in Mechanistic Interpretability Circuits: Subgraphs of a neural network that im- plement specific algorithmic functions (Cammarata et al., 2020; Olah et al., 2020). Circuit analysis aims to identify minimal subnetworks responsible for particular behaviors. Features: Directions in activation space corre- sponding to interpretable concepts (Olah et al., 2017). Features may be represented by individual neurons (monosemantic) or by linear combinations of neurons (polysemantic). Superposition: The hypothesis that networks rep- resent more features than they have neurons by storing features in superposition—as overlapping combinations of neural activations (Elhage et al., 2022). This creates significant challenges for inter- pretability. Residual stream: In transformers, information flows through a residual stream that accumulates contributions from attention and MLP layers (El- hage et al., 2021). Understanding how components read from and write to this stream is crucial for circuit analysis. 3 Methods for Mechanistic Interpretability 3.1 Activation Analysis and Probing Probing classifiers train auxiliary models to pre- dict properties from internal representations, re- vealing what information is encoded in activations (Belinkov, 2022). For alignment, probes have been used to detect when models represent harmful content (Zou et al., 2023) or deceptive reasoning (Azaria and Mitchell, 2023). However, probing has limitations: high probe accuracy doesn’t nec- essarily mean information is used for downstream computations (Belinkov, 2022), and probes may learn to extract information in ways unrelated to the model’s actual computations. Logit lens and tuned lens methods project interme- diate activations through the unembedding matrix to interpret representations as probability distribu- tions over vocabulary (Belrose et al., 2023). These techniques reveal how predictions evolve through layers and have been used to study phenomena like in-context learning (Olsson et al., 2022). 3.2 Attention Pattern Analysis Attention weights provide direct insight into infor- mation flow between tokens. Researchers have identified interpretable attention patterns corre- sponding to specific functions: •Induction heads: Attention patterns that im- plement in-context learning by copying infor- mation from previous similar contexts (Olsson et al., 2022) • Previous token heads: Heads that primar- ily attend to the immediately preceding token (Elhage et al., 2021) •Factual recall heads: Heads involved in re- trieving factual knowledge (Meng et al., 2022) For alignment applications, attention analysis has revealed how models process and propagate harmful content (Zou et al., 2023), enabling tar- geted interventions. 3.3 Circuit Discovery Circuit discovery aims to identify minimal sub- networks implementing specific behaviors. Key approaches include: Activation patching (also called causal tracing): Systematically intervenes on activations to deter- mine which components causally contribute to par- ticular outputs (Meng et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). By corrupting inputs and selectively restor- ing clean activations, researchers identify necessary and sufficient components for behaviors. Automatic circuit discovery: Recent methods au- tomate circuit identification using techniques like: •Attribution patching: Efficiently approxi- mates patching by computing gradients (Syed et al., 2024) • Edge pruning: Iteratively removes edges in the computational graph while maintaining output behavior (Conmy et al., 2023) • Pathpatching:Tracesinformation flow along specific paths through the network (Goldowsky-Dill et al., 2023) These automated methods have successfully dis- covered circuits for tasks like indirect object identi- fication (Wang et al., 2022) and greater-than com- parisons (Hanna et al., 2023). 3.4 Feature Visualization and Sparse Autoencoders Understanding what individual neurons or direc- tions in activation space represent is fundamental to interpretability. Traditional approaches include: Feature visualization: Optimizing inputs to maxi- mally activate specific neurons (Olah et al., 2017). For LLMs, this involves finding token sequences that strongly activate target features. Dataset examples: Collecting examples from training data that highly activate features (Bills et al., 2023). Recent work uses LMs to automati- cally generate natural language descriptions of neu- ron behavior based on these examples (Bills et al., 2023). Sparse autoencoders (SAEs): Address the super- position challenge by training autoencoders with sparsity constraints to decompose neural activa- tions into interpretable features (Cunningham et al., 2023; Bricken et al., 2023). SAEs learn overcom- plete feature dictionaries where individual features correspond to interpretable concepts. Recent work has successfully applied SAEs to various layers of LLMs, discovering features corresponding to topics, entities, and linguistic properties (Bricken et al., 2023). 3.5 Causal Interventions and Steering Beyond observational analysis, interventional tech- niques directly modify model internals to test causal hypotheses and control behavior: Activation steering: Directly editing activations during inference to control model behavior (Turner et al., 2024; Li et al., 2023). By adding carefully chosen vectors to activations, researchers can am- plify or suppress specific behavioral tendencies. This has been applied to enhance truthfulness, re- duce toxicity, and control stylistic properties (Li et al., 2023). Representation engineering: A framework for reading and controlling high-level cognitive prop- erties by identifying representation directions and performing targeted interventions (Zou et al., 2023). This approach has been used to enhance honesty and reduce hallucination in LLMs. Causal abstractions: Formal framework for ver- ifying whether interpretations correspond to true causal relationships in the model (Geiger et al., 2021, 2022). This provides rigorous foundations for validating interpretability claims. Table 1 provides a systematic taxonomy of mech- Table 1: Taxonomy of Mechanistic Interpretability Techniques CategoryTechniqueKey MechanismStrengthsLimitations Observational Analysis Probing ClassifiersLinear classifiers on internal activa- tions Low computational cost; detects encoded information No causal guarantees; may not re- flect actual usage Logit Lens / Tuned LensProject activations through the un- embedding matrix Traces prediction evolution; in- terpretable outputs Layer-wise snapshots only; assumes linearity Attention Pattern AnalysisVisualization of attention weightsDirect insight into information flow; identifies head roles Does not capture MLP effects; diffi- cult compositional interpretation Feature Discovery Sparse Autoencoders (SAE)Sparse dictionary learning withℓ 1 regularization Addresses polysemanticity; dis- covers monosemantic features Scaling challenges; reconstruction– fidelity trade-offs Dataset Examples + LLM Description High-activation examples with auto- mated descriptions Scalable; human-interpretable summaries Descriptions may be post-hoc; vali- dation difficulty Circuit Discovery Activation Patching Corrupt and restore activations to test causal impact Gold standard for causal attribu- tion Computationally expensive; combi- natorial explosion Automated DiscoveryGraph pruning using faithfulness metrics Automates circuit isolation; scal- able Requires threshold tuning; may miss distributed circuits Attribution PatchingGradient-based approximation of patching Efficient; good causal approxima- tion Less precise than full patching Path PatchingTrace information flow along se- lected paths Isolates direct versus indirect ef- fects Path explosion in deep networks Causal Intervention Activation SteeringAdd direction vectors to intermedi- ate activations Precise behavior control; no re- training required Requires high-quality steering vec- tors; generalization unclear Knowledge EditingDirect weight modification (e.g., ROME, MEMIT) Surgical fact updates; preserves other knowledge Primarily factual scope; potential side effects Representation Engineering Read and control abstract properties via latent directions Targetshigh-levelconcepts; multi-property control Robust direction discovery; interac- tion effects ValidationCausal AbstractionsFormal alignment between model mechanisms and interpretations Rigorous causal guarantees; prin- cipled evaluation Computationally intensive; requires formalization anistic interpretability techniques, organized by their primary function. These methods are often used in combination—for example, using sparse autoencoders to identify features, then using activa- tion patching to discover which circuits use those features causally. 4 Applications to LLM Alignment 4.1 Understanding RLHF Mechanisms Mechanistic interpretability has begun to illuminate how RLHF changes model behavior: Value representation: Research has investigated how reward models represent human preferences (Casper et al., 2023). Studies using probing and intervention methods suggest reward models learn relatively shallow heuristics rather than deep under- standing of human values. Policy changes: Circuit analysis of pre- and post- RLHF models reveals that RLHF primarily affects specific components related to response initiation and style, while core knowledge and reasoning circuits remain largely unchanged (Tigges et al., 2023). This suggests RLHF acts more as a behav- ioral filter than fundamental value learning. Sycophancy circuits: Interpretability work has identified circuits responsible for sycophantic be- havior—models agreeing with user statements re- gardless of truth (Sharma et al., 2023). These find- ings enable targeted debiasing interventions. 4.2 Detecting and Mitigating Deception A critical alignment concern is whether models might learn deceptive strategies—behaving well during evaluation while pursuing misaligned objec- tives in deployment. Lie detection: Recent work uses linear probes to detect when models generate false statements (Azaria and Mitchell, 2023).These detectors achieve reasonable accuracy but face challenges when deception is sophisticated or the model is trained to evade detection. Situational awareness: Research has investigated whether models represent information about their training status or evaluation context (Berglund et al., 2023). Such representations could enable deceptive alignment, where models behave differ- ently when they believe they’re being evaluated. Trojan detection: Interpretability techniques have been applied to detect backdoor attacks and tro- jans in language models (Huang et al., 2023), with circuit discovery methods identifying malicious subnetworks. 4.3 Reducing Harmful Outputs Toxicity circuits: Circuit analysis has identified specific attention heads and MLPs responsible for generating toxic or harmful content (Zou et al., 2023). Ablating or modifying these components re- duces harmful outputs while minimally impacting benign capabilities. Bias mitigation: Interpretability methods have re- vealed how stereotypical biases are represented and propagated through layers (Vig et al., 2020). This enables targeted interventions to reduce specific biases without extensive retraining. Refusal mechanisms: Recent work has analyzed how models learn to refuse harmful requests (Arditi et al., 2024), identifying specific components re- sponsible for safety behaviors. Understanding these mechanisms helps improve robustness of safety training. 4.4 Improving Factuality and Reducing Hallucination Knowledge localization: Research has localized where factual knowledge is stored in transformer models, primarily in MLP layers (Geva et al., 2021; Meng et al., 2022). This enables: •Knowledge editing: Directly modifying stored facts without retraining (Meng et al., 2022; Mitchell et al., 2021) • Uncertainty quantification: Detecting when models lack relevant knowledge (Kadavath et al., 2022) •Hallucination detection: Identifying when models generate content not grounded in their training data Attention to source information: Analysis of how models attend to provided context versus internal knowledge reveals mechanisms underlying hallu- cination (Mallen et al., 2023). Models sometimes preferentially rely on memorized information even when contradicted by input context. 4.5 Enhancing Transparency and Oversight Chain-of-thought interpretability: Mechanistic analysis of models generating chain-of-thought reasoning reveals the relationship between inter- mediate steps and internal computations (Wang et al., 2023). This addresses whether reasoning traces faithfully represent actual model cognition or merely post-hoc rationalizations. Faithful explanations: Interpretability methods help validate whether model-generated explana- tions correspond to true decision-making processes (Turpin et al., 2023). Evidence suggests explana- tions can be superficial or misleading, highlighting the need for mechanistic verification. Scalable oversight: Interpretability tools enable humans to oversee model behavior on tasks where direct evaluation is difficult (Bowman et al., 2022). By examining internal representations and circuits, supervisors can detect potential misalignment even when outputs appear reasonable. 4.6 Pluralistic Alignment: Values, Culture, and Diversity A critical challenge in LLM alignment is that hu- man values are diverse, context-dependent, and often conflicting across individuals, communities, and cultures (Sorensen et al., 2024). Pluralistic alignment aims to develop AI systems that can navigate this diversity rather than optimizing for a single conception of "aligned" behavior (Bakker et al., 2022). 4.6.1 Representing Value Diversity Mechanistic interpretability research has begun in- vestigating how models represent different value systems, moral frameworks, and cultural perspec- tives: Moral and ethical frameworks: Recent work using sparse autoencoders has identified distinct features corresponding to different ethical perspec- tives—deontological, consequentialist, and virtue- based reasoning—that activate in different contexts (Kirk et al., 2024). Understanding these representa- tions enables: • Value attribution: Determining which value systems influence particular model outputs •Conflict detection: Identifying when multi- ple incompatible values are activated simulta- neously •Bias auditing: Detecting systematic prefer- ences for certain value frameworks over others Cultural value systems: Circuit analysis re- veals systematic patterns in how models represent cultural diversity: •Western-centric value circuits: Models trained predominantly on English internet data develop circuits that robustly encode West- ern ethical frameworks (individualism, auton- omy, rights-based reasoning) while represent- ing collectivist or communitarian values more weakly (Alkhamissi et al., 2024). Circuit anal- ysis shows that MLP layers contain dense factual associations about Western cultural contexts but sparser representations of non- Western traditions. •Language-dependent moral reasoning: Multilingual models often exhibit different moral judgments depending on the language of the query, even when semantically equiv- alent (Ramezani and Xu, 2023). Attention pattern analysis reveals that models route information through different circuits based on language, suggesting distinct cultural value systems are encoded in language-specific pathways. •Cultural knowledge localization: Similar to factual knowledge neurons (Geva et al., 2021), models contain neurons that activate for culture-specific information—holidays, cus- toms, historical events, social norms—with different cultural traditions stored in partially overlapping but distinguishable neural popu- lations (Arora et al., 2023). 4.6.2Interventions for Pluralistic Alignment Mechanistic interpretability enables several ap- proaches to handling value and cultural diversity: Activation steering for diverse preferences: Ac- tivation steering methods have been extended to control which value systems and cultural perspec- tives models prioritize (Tigges et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023). By identifying representation directions cor- responding to different philosophical, political, or cultural perspectives, researchers can dynamically adjust model behavior without retraining: •Value-based steering: Shifting between utili- tarian and deontological reasoning •Cultural steering vectors: Moving outputs toward different cultural perspectives (e.g., East Asian collectivist values vs. Western in- dividualist values) • Personalization: Adapting to individual user preferences while maintaining transparency RLHF with diverse preferences: Mechanistic analysis of reward models trained on diverse human feedback reveals how models aggregate conflicting preferences (Bakker et al., 2022): •Standard RLHF often learns to satisfy major- ity preferences while ignoring minority view- points •Preference decomposition:Identifying which demographic or value groups influence different parts of the model •Fairness interventions: Detecting and cor- recting underrepresentation of minority per- spectives •Culturally-aware RLHF: Circuit-level anal- ysis shows reward models often learn cultural stereotypes rather than nuanced understanding (Nicholas and Bhatia, 2023) Circuit editing for inclusive representation: Directly modifying circuits to improve representa- tion of underrepresented perspectives: •Strengthening circuits for non-Western cul- tural knowledge (Meng et al., 2022) •Ablating stereotype propagation heads (Vig et al., 2020) • Engineering value framework circuits for bet- ter balance 4.6.3 Challenges in Pluralistic Alignment Mechanistic interpretability faces unique chal- lenges when addressing value and cultural diver- sity: Value incommensurability:Some values may be fundamentally incompatible, creating superposition-like conflicts where models cannot simultaneously represent all perspectives at full strength.This is particularly acute for cultural values that reflect different ontological assumptions. Asymmetric representation capacity: Models trained on imbalanced data develop asymmetric circuit structures where dominant cultural concepts have richer, more robust representations (Nicholas and Bhatia, 2023). This may be a fundamental limitation rather than easily correctable. Context-dependence:The appropriate value framework often depends on subtle contextual fac- tors—cultural context, domain, relationship dynam- ics—that models must learn to recognize. Current models often fail to activate culturally-appropriate circuits in the right contexts. Power dynamics and essentialism: •Decisions about which cultural perspectives to prioritize reflect existing power structures (Birhane et al., 2022) •Mechanistic interventions targeting "cultural values" risk essentializing complex, heteroge- neous cultures into simplified feature vectors Table 2: Mechanistic Interpretability Applications to Alignment Challenges Alignment GoalMI ApproachKey FindingsInterventions EnabledKey Limitations Understanding RLHFCircuitcomparisonpre/post- RLHF; reward model analysis RLHF primarily affects response- style circuits rather than core rea- soning; reward models learn shallow heuristics Targeted RLHF improvements; de- tection of alignment failures Unclear how to induce deep value learning Detecting DeceptionProbing for false statements; situ- ational awareness analysis Linear probes detect deception with moderate accuracy; internal states encode training context Lie detection systems; monitoring for deceptive alignment Sophisticateddeceptionmay evade detection Reducing ToxicityCircuit discovery for harmful con- tent; stereotype head identifica- tion Specific attention heads propagate toxic content and can be ablated Surgical toxicity removal; stereo- type mitigation Potential impact on benign capa- bilities Improving FactualityKnowledge localization in MLPs; source-attention analysis Facts are stored in MLP layers; mod- els may ignore context in favor of memorized information Knowledge editing; hallucination detection; uncertainty estimation Limited to factual knowledge; possible side effects Pluralistic AlignmentValue-feature discovery; cultural circuit analysis; steering vectors Models encode multiple ethical frameworks with uneven robustness Value-based steering; cultural adap- tation; personalization Context dependence; essentialism risks; capacity asymmetries EnhancingTrans- parency Chain-of-thought circuit analysis; explanation faithfulness verifica- tion Explanations may be post-hoc and not reflect true computation Detection of unfaithful reasoning; explanation validation Persistent gap between explana- tion and reasoning Scalable OversightInternal state monitoring; circuit- level anomaly detection Misalignment can be detected in rep- resentations despite benign outputs Early warning systems; targeted hu- man oversight Requiresidentifyingwhich anomalies signal genuine risk •Cultures are dynamic and internally diverse; static circuit-level representations may rein- force stereotypes Meta-level values: Beyond first-order preferences, pluralistic alignment requires representing meta- values about how to adjudicate between conflicting preferences—itself a culturally-variable question. Evaluation challenges: Assessing cultural align- ment requires culturally-grounded evaluation, but most interpretability researchers come from West- ern contexts, potentially missing important biases. Table 2 maps mechanistic interpretability ap- proaches to specific alignment objectives, illustrat- ing how different MI techniques enable targeted interventions while also highlighting their limita- tions. This demonstrates both the promise and cur- rent constraints of interpretability-based alignment. 5 Fundamental Challenges 5.1 Superposition and Polysemanticity The superposition hypothesis posits that networks represent more features than dimensions by storing features in overlapping combinations of neurons (Elhage et al., 2022). This creates fundamental challenges: Polysemantic neurons: Individual neurons re- spond to multiple unrelated concepts, making neuron-level interpretability difficult (Cammarata et al., 2020). Research suggests models exploit sparsity—most features are inactive for most in- puts—to pack many features into limited dimen- sions. Interference and interaction: Features in super- position can interfere with each other in complex ways, making it difficult to predict how interven- tions will affect behavior (Elhage et al., 2022). Computational burden: Sparse autoencoders and other decomposition methods show promise but face scalability challenges. Training SAEs for fron- tier models requires enormous compute, and the number of features grows combinatorially (Bricken et al., 2023). 5.2 Scale and Complexity Emergence: Large models exhibit emergent capa- bilities not present in smaller versions (Wei et al., 2022). Whether interpretability techniques devel- oped on smaller models transfer to frontier systems remains uncertain. Circuit interaction: Real behaviors involve com- plex interactions between many circuits. Under- standing how circuits compose and interfere is sig- nificantly harder than understanding individual cir- cuits in isolation (Olah et al., 2020). Computational costs: Comprehensive circuit anal- ysis requires extensive patching experiments that scale poorly with model size. Automated methods help but still face significant computational barriers for the largest models. 5.3 Validation and Ground Truth Lack of ground truth: Unlike in neuroscience, we cannot easily verify interpretability hypothe- ses through direct experimentation. We must infer computational mechanisms from behavioral obser- vations and interventions. Confirmation bias: Researchers may find inter- pretations that appear compelling but don’t reflect true model computations (Räuker et al., 2023). Rig- orous causal verification is essential but often ne- glected. Evaluation metrics: The field lacks standardized metrics for evaluating interpretability quality. Pro- posals include causal faithfulness (Geiger et al., 2021), predictive power, and consistency across models, but no consensus exists. 5.4 Alignment-Specific Challenges Inner alignment: Even with perfect interpretabil- ity of current behavior, we may fail to detect mis- aligned objectives that only manifest in specific cir- cumstances (Hubinger et al., 2019). Models might develop instrumental goals or deceptive strategies that remain dormant during training. Optimization demons:Training may pro- duce unintended optimization processes within networks—sub-agents pursuing their own objec- tives (Skalse et al., 2022). Detecting and interpret- ing such structures remains an open challenge. Value representation: Human values are complex, context-dependent, and difficult to specify. Even if we perfectly understand how models represent and pursue goals, determining whether those goals align with human values is philosophically and empirically challenging (Gabriel, 2020). Cultural representation challenges: Achiev- ing cultural alignment through mechanistic inter- pretability faces unique obstacles: • Asymmetric representation capacity: Mod- els trained on imbalanced multilingual data develop asymmetric circuit structures where Western concepts have richer, more robust representations than non-Western concepts (Nicholas and Bhatia, 2023). This asymmetry may be fundamental rather than easily cor- rectable. •Cultural essentialism risks: Mechanistic in- terventions targeting "cultural values" risk es- sentializing complex, heterogeneous cultures into simplified feature vectors. Cultures are dynamic and internally diverse; static circuit- level representations may reinforce stereo- types. •Power dynamics in alignment: Decisions about which cultural perspectives to priori- tize in model behavior reflect existing power structures. Mechanistic interpretability must grapple with who decides what constitutes "aligned" cultural representation (Birhane et al., 2022). Table 3 summarizes the fundamental challenges facing mechanistic interpretability research, along with current mitigation strategies and remaining open problems. These challenges are intercon- nected—for instance, superposition exacerbates scalability issues, while lack of validation makes it harder to assess whether mitigation strategies actually work. 6 Future Research Directions 6.1 Automated Interpretability at Scale Scalable circuit discovery: Developing efficient algorithms for circuit discovery that scale to models with hundreds of billions of parameters. Promising directions include: •Gradient-based attribution methods that ap- proximate expensive patching experiments •Hierarchical approaches that identify high- level functional modules before fine-grained circuits •Amortized interpretability where meta-models learn to interpret target models Automated description generation: Extending methods like automated neuron description (Bills et al., 2023) to describe circuits, attention patterns, and higher-level computational structures. Lan- guage models themselves may be powerful tools for generating and validating interpretability hy- potheses. Multimodal interpretability: Extending tech- niques to vision-language models and other multi- modal architectures requires new methods for un- derstanding cross-modal interactions and represen- tations (?). 6.2 Cross-Model Generalization Universal circuits: Investigating whether similar circuits appear across different models, architec- tures, and training procedures (Conmy et al., 2023). If circuits are universal, interpretability insights could transfer between models, dramatically reduc- ing analysis costs. Meta-learning interpretability: Training models to predict interpretable structure in other models. Table 3: Core Challenges in Mechanistic Interpretability for Alignment ChallengeDescriptionEvidenceCurrent MitigationsOpen Problems Superposition & Polyse- manticity Networks represent more features than dimensions via overlapping codes; neurons respond to multiple unrelated concepts Models exploit sparsity to pack fea- tures; individual neurons are highly polysemantic Sparse autoencoders with overcom- plete dictionaries; topology-aware SAEs Scaling SAEs to frontier models; han- dling feature interactions; exponential feature growth ScalabilityCircuit analysis methods do not scale to models with hundreds of bil- lions of parameters Patching experiments scale quadrati- cally in components; frontier models contain thousands of layers and heads Attribution patching; hierarchical anal- ysis; automated circuit discovery Real-time interpretability for deploy- ment; analyzing emergent behaviors in the largest models Validation & Ground Truth No objective ground truth for verify- ing interpretations; risk of confirma- tion bias Interpretations can be compelling yet incorrect; lack of standardized evalua- tion metrics Causal abstractions; ablation studies; cross-model consistency checks Gold-standard benchmarks; measuring interpretation quality; detecting spuri- ous explanations Circuit Composition & Interaction Real-world behaviors arise from complex interactions among many circuits Simple circuits compose non-linearly; representations are often distributed Circuit superposition analysis; circuit graphs; compositional patching Understanding emergent properties; predicting downstream effects of in- terventions Universality vs. Speci- ficity Unclear whether circuits generalize across models, architectures, and training regimes Some universal circuits exist, but many are model- or task-specific Cross-model comparison; analysis of circuit evolution during training Determining when insights transfer; architecture- versus task-dependence Asymmetric Represen- tation Dominant cultural or value perspec- tives are encoded more robustly than minority views Western concepts often have richer or more stable circuits than non-Western ones Targeted circuit editing; culturally di- verse training data; steering vectors Capacity constraints; measuring repre- sentation equity; avoiding essentialism Inner Alignment Detec- tion Difficulty identifying misaligned mesa-objectives that appear only in specific contexts Concerns about deceptive alignment; models may obscure true objectives Situational awareness probes; circuit- level anomaly detection; goal monitor- ing Detecting sophisticated deception; ver- ifying alignment under distribution shift Dual-Use&Misuse Risks Interpretability tools may enable re- moval of safety features or improved deception Circuit analysis could facilitate jail- breaking or bypassing refusal mech- anisms Responsible disclosure; access con- trols; security-aware research practices Balancing transparency with security; developing defensive interpretability uses Such meta-interpretability systems could enable rapid analysis of new models and potentially auto- mated safety verification. Transfer of interventions: Determining when steering vectors, circuit ablations, or other inter- ventions generalize across models. This would en- able developing alignment techniques on smaller, more interpretable models with confidence they’l transfer to frontier systems. 6.3 Interpretability-First Alignment Mechanistic anomaly detection: Using inter- pretability tools to detect anomalous circuits or representations that might indicate deceptive align- ment, goal misgeneralization, or other alignment failures (Jenner et al., 2024). Transparent architectures: Designing model ar- chitectures with interpretability as a first-class ob- jective. This might include: •Encouraging monosemantic representations through architectural constraints •Building in explicit symbolic reasoning com- ponents •Modular designs that separate different cogni- tive functions Interpretability-guided training: Using inter- pretability insights during training to encourage de- sired representations and circuits (Zou et al., 2023). This could include: •Regularizers that encourage interpretable fea- ture representations •Curriculum learning ordered to develop cir- cuits in interpretable ways •Online monitoring and correction of problem- atic circuits during training 6.4 Theoretical Foundations Formal verification: Developing rigorous meth- ods to prove properties about model behavior based on circuit structure. This would require connecting mechanistic interpretability to formal verification techniques from computer science (Huang et al., 2019). Information-theoretic frameworks: Building principled theories of how information flows through neural networks and using these to for- malize concepts like circuits, features, and super- position (Elhage et al., 2021). Causal models: Strengthening connections to causal inference and structural causal models to provide rigorous foundations for interpretability claims (Geiger et al., 2021, 2022). 6.5 Practical Alignment Applications Red-teaming with interpretability: Using mech- anistic understanding to identify attack vectors and failure modes that behavioral testing might miss. This includes adversarial attacks targeting specific circuits and stress-testing alignment mechanisms. Monitoring deployed systems:Developing interpretability-based monitoring systems that can detect alignment failures or distributional shift in deployed models by tracking circuit activations and representations (Hubinger et al., 2019). Debate and amplification: Enhancing scalable oversight techniques like debate (Irving et al., 2018) and recursive reward modeling (Leike et al., 2018) with interpretability tools that help humans evaluate subtle arguments and detect deception. Value learning: Using interpretability to under- stand how models represent human preferences and values, potentially enabling more effective value learning approaches than current RLHF methods. 6.6 Mechanistic Understanding and Mitigation of Misalignment Through Pluralistic Approaches A comprehensive research program leveraging mechanistic interpretability for alignment should address both understanding and actively mitigating misalignment while respecting value and cultural diversity. 6.6.1 Mechanizing Misalignment Detection Future work should develop automated systems that continuously monitor model internals for signs of misalignment: Objective representation analysis: Detecting when models develop mesa-objectives or proxy goals that diverge from intended alignment targets (Hubinger et al., 2019). This requires identifying circuits that implement goal-directed behavior and verifying their alignment with human values. Deceptive reasoning detection: Building on work detecting lies (Azaria and Mitchell, 2023), fu- ture systems should identify more subtle forms of deception, including strategic misrepresentation, selective information withholding, and context- dependent honesty. Value drift monitoring: Tracking how value repre- sentations change during deployment, fine-tuning, or continued learning. Mechanistic interpretability enables detecting when models shift away from intended value functions. 6.6.2 Circuit-Level Misalignment Mitigation Moving beyond behavioral alignment to directly modify problematic circuits: Targeted ablation and repair: Identifying mini- mal circuits responsible for misaligned behaviors and either ablating them or replacing them with cor- rected versions. This requires understanding circuit composition well enough to predict downstream effects of modifications (Conmy et al., 2023). Value circuit engineering: Directly engineering circuits that implement desired value functions, rather than hoping they emerge from training. This could involve composing interpretable subcircuits for value recognition, ethical reasoning, and prefer- ence aggregation. Adversarial robustness through interpretability: Using circuit analysis to identify vulnerabilities to adversarial attacks and jailbreaks, then harden- ing these circuits against exploitation (Zou et al., 2023). This provides more principled robustness than behavioral adversarial training. 6.6.3 Pluralistic Alignment Infrastructure Modular value and cultural systems: Design- ing architectures where different value frameworks and cultural perspectives are implemented in inter- pretable, composable circuits: •Explicit context modules: Circuits that ex- plicitly represent the cultural and value con- text of a query and route information accord- ingly •Plug-in value systems: Modular components encoding different ethical and cultural frame- works that can be activated, combined, or swapped based on context •Cultural calibration layers: Interpretable layers that adjust outputs based on cultural context Automated cross-cultural circuit discovery: De- veloping tools to systematically identify biases and gaps: • Comparative circuit analysis: Automati- cally comparing circuits activated by equiva- lent queries across languages/cultures to de- tect systematic differences (Wendler et al., 2024) •Underrepresentation detection: Identify- ing domains where certain perspectives are weakly represented • Bias attribution: Tracing culturally-biased outputs back to specific components Participatory mechanistic alignment: Involving diverse communities in interpretability-based align- ment: •Community-driven circuit auditing: Tools enabling cultural communities to audit circuits affecting their values • Collaborative value specification: Working with diverse stakeholders to specify desired value circuits •Cultural red-teaming with interpretability: Using mechanistic understanding to enable cultural community members to identify fail- ure modes that automated testing might miss. Cross-lingual circuit transfer:Investigating whether cultural alignment insights transfer across languages: •Universal cultural reasoning circuits: De- termining whether models develop language- independent circuits for cultural reasoning that could be analyzed once and applied broadly •Language-specific cultural pathways: Map- ping how different languages activate different cultural circuits and developing interventions that work across linguistic diversity •Multilingual feature disentanglement: Us- ing sparse autoencoders to separate language- specific features from cultural value features, enabling targeted cultural alignment without language interference Measuring pluralistic alignment mechanisti- cally: Beyond behavioral metrics, developing interpretability-based measures: •Cultural representation diversity: Quan- tifying how uniformly different cultural per- spectives are represented in model features and circuits •Stereotype circuit strength: Measuring the causal impact of circuits that propagate cul- tural stereotypes •Value framework balance:Assessing whether circuits implementing different ethi- cal frameworks (Western individualism, Con- fucian relationalism, Ubuntu communalism, etc.) have comparable representation capacity •Context-appropriate activation: Verifying that culturally-relevant circuits activate in ap- propriate contexts rather than uniformly Preference personalization without fine-tuning: Using activation steering and circuit-level interven- tions to adapt model behavior to individual user values without expensive per-user training. Under- standing which circuits control value-relevant be- haviors enables efficient, interpretable customiza- tion. Fairness through feature editing: Identifying fea- tures and circuits that encode biases toward partic- ular value systems or demographic groups, then editing these to ensure fair representation of di- verse perspectives (Sorensen et al., 2024). This provides more targeted bias mitigation than dataset rebalancing. Explicit value negotiation: Developing inter- pretable mechanisms for models to recognize value conflicts and negotiate between competing prefer- ences transparently. This requires circuits that can represent uncertainty over values, model different stakeholders, and reason about ethical trade-offs. 6.6.4 Scaling Mechanistic Alignment to Superintelligence Critical challenges for applying interpretability- based alignment to systems more capable than cur- rent models: Recursive alignment verification: As models be- come capable enough to assist with alignment re- search, using interpretability to verify that align- ment assistance is itself aligned. This requires de- tecting whether models are genuinely helping or pursuing instrumental goals through apparent co- operation. Emergent misalignment detection: Developing interpretability methods that can detect novel forms of misalignment that emerge at greater capability levels. This may require meta-interpretability sys- tems that can discover new types of circuits and representations. Scalable value learning: Using mechanistic under- standing to enable models to learn human values from limited feedback by understanding how hu- mans represent and reason about values, rather than treating values as black-box reward functions. 6.6.5 Integration with Multi-Stakeholder Governance Interpretability-based pluralistic alignment should support participatory approaches to AI governance: •Transparent value trade-offs: Making ex- plicit which groups’ preferences are priori- tized in different contexts, enabling demo- cratic deliberation about alignment targets • Auditable customization: Allowing third par- ties to verify that deployed models respect diverse values as claimed •Contestable AI systems: Enabling users to understand and potentially contest the value judgments embedded in model behavior 6.6.6 Research Priorities To realize this vision, the field must: • Globalinterpretabilitycollaboration: Building international research collabora- tions to ensure interpretability methods are validated across cultural contexts •Culturally-diverse training for inter- pretability researchers:Training in- terpretabilityresearchersfromdiverse backgrounds to recognize biases others might miss •Standardized cross-cultural benchmarks: Developing interpretability-specific bench- marks that test whether circuit-level interven- tions successfully address cultural bias while maintaining capabilities •Ethical frameworks for cultural alignment: Establishing principles for when and how to modify cultural representations in models, re- specting cultural autonomy while addressing harmful biases • Scalable cultural knowledge integration: Developing methods to efficiently integrate di- verse cultural knowledge into models through targeted circuit editing rather than pro- hibitively expensive retraining •Value representation formalism: Develop- ing interpretability methods specifically de- signed for analyzing value representations and ethical reasoning circuits •Pluralistic evaluation: Creating evaluation frameworks that assess how well models han- dle value conflicts and pluralistic scenarios across diverse cultural contexts Case study - Collectivist vs. Individualist rea- soning: Recent work has examined how models reason about moral dilemmas involving individual rights versus collective welfare: •Circuit analysis reveals Western-trained models have more robust pathways for rights-based reasoning than duty-based or community-focused reasoning (Alkhamissi et al., 2024) • Interventions adding collectivist reasoning cir- cuits improve performance on cross-cultural moral reasoning tasks •However, simply strengthening collectivist cir- cuits can create new biases if not carefully calibrated to context This research program represents a shift from black-box behavioral alignment to white-box mech- anistic alignment—directly engineering and verify- ing the internal computations that determine model behavior. Success would provide stronger guaran- tees about alignment under distribution shift, novel situations, and increasing capability levels. More- over, interpretability-based approaches to pluralis- tic alignment offer a path toward AI systems that can genuinely respect diverse human values and cultural perspectives rather than imposing uniform alignment targets. 7 Discussion and Recommendations 7.1 The Path Forward Mechanistic interpretability has made significant progress but remains far from providing compre- hensive understanding of frontier LLMs. We rec- ommend a balanced research portfolio: In the near term, research priorities should focus on scaling sparse autoencoder–based approaches to the largest contemporary models, enabling the extraction of interpretable features at previously unattainable scales. At the same time, there is a need to automate the discovery and validation of model circuits, reducing reliance on labor-intensive, ad hoc analyses. Integrating interpretability tools directly into standard model development pipelines will be critical for making mechanistic analy- sis a routine component of model training and deployment. In parallel, interpretability studies should be extended to RLHF and related alignment techniques, with the goal of understanding how these methods shape internal representations and decision-making processes. Over the medium term, the field should advance toward the development and empirical evaluation of alignment methods that are explicitly guided by interpretability insights. Establishing standard- ized benchmarks and evaluation protocols will be essential to ensure comparability and cumulative progress across interpretability studies. Research should also investigate the extent to which learned circuits and features generalize across architectures, scales, and training regimes, thereby clarifying whether mechanistic insights are model-specific or reflect more universal principles. In addition, interpretability-based monitoring systems should be developed to support the ongoing oversight of deployed models, enabling the detection of emer- gent risks or unintended behaviors in real-world settings. In the long term, a central objective is to achieve a comprehensive mechanistic understanding of highly capable or potentially superintelligent sys- tems. Such understanding would enable the devel- opment of formal verification methods grounded in circuit-level structure, offering stronger guaran- tees about model behavior than empirical testing alone. Progress toward interpretability-first model architectures could further embed alignment con- siderations directly into system design, rather than treating them as post-hoc constraints. Ultimately, these advances aim to resolve the inner alignment problem by grounding alignment guarantees in a deep, mechanistic account of how advanced models represent goals, values, and decision processes. 7.2 Integration with Other Alignment Approaches Interpretability should complement rather than re- place other alignment research: Synergies with RLHF: Interpretability can diag- nose RLHF failures, suggest improvements, and validate that alignment training achieves intended effects (Casper et al., 2023). Enhancing red-teaming: Mechanistic understand- ing enables more sophisticated adversarial test- ing that targets specific circuits and failure modes (Perez et al., 2022). Supporting theoretical alignment: Interpretabil- ity provides empirical grounding for theoretical alignment proposals, revealing which concerns are realized in practice and which remain theoretical (Hubinger et al., 2019). 7.3 Limitations and Risks We acknowledge important limitations: False confidence: Interpretability might provide misleading confidence in model safety if interpre- tations are incorrect or incomplete. Rigorous vali- dation is essential. Arms race dynamics: Interpretability tools could be used to make models better at deception or to remove safety mechanisms. Responsible disclosure norms are important (Brundage et al., 2020). Diminishing returns: The cost of interpretability may grow faster than model capabilities, poten- tially making comprehensive understanding of fu- ture systems intractable. Planning for this scenario is crucial. Philosophical challenges: Even perfect inter- pretability may not resolve fundamental questions about consciousness, moral status, or value align- ment in AI systems (Schwitzgebel and Garza, 2015). 8 Conclusion Mechanistic interpretability represents a crucial approach to understanding and aligning large lan- guage models. Recent progress in circuit discovery, feature analysis, and causal intervention has demon- strated that we can reverse-engineer specific algo- rithms and representations in modern LLMs. These insights have enabled targeted alignment interven- tions, from steering model behavior to detecting deception and reducing harmful outputs. However, fundamental challenges remain. Su- perposition creates significant barriers to feature- level interpretability. The scale and complexity of frontier models strain existing methods. Vali- dation of interpretability claims remains difficult without ground truth. Most significantly, we lack comprehensive understanding of how to ensure in- ner alignment—that models pursue truly aligned objectives rather than merely exhibiting aligned behavior. The challenge of pluralistic and cultural align- ment exemplifies why mechanistic interpretability is essential for responsible AI development. As LLMs are deployed globally, they must navigate diverse cultural contexts, values, and communica- tion norms. Surface-level behavioral alignment calibrated to one cultural context often fails or causes harm when applied elsewhere. Only by understanding the internal circuits that encode cul- tural knowledge and values can we build systems that genuinely respect human diversity rather than imposing dominant cultural assumptions. This re- quires not just technical advances in interpretability, but participatory approaches that involve diverse cultural communities in auditing, specifying, and validating model internals. The path forward requires sustained research investment across multiple fronts: developing scal- able automated interpretability methods, establish- ing rigorous validation protocols, investigating cross-model generalization, building interpretabil- ity directly into alignment training, and creat- ing infrastructure for pluralistic alignment that re- spects diverse values and cultures. Success will require close collaboration between interpretabil- ity researchers, alignment theorists, practitioners deploying models in high-stakes applications, and diverse cultural communities whose values must be represented. As language models grow more capable and their societal impact increases, mechanistic interpretabil- ity becomes increasingly essential. Only by under- standing how these systems work internally can we hope to ensure they remain beneficial, truthful, and aligned with the full diversity of human values across cultures and contexts. The research commu- nity must rise to this challenge with urgency, rigor, and humility about the difficulty of the task ahead. References Badr Alkhamissi, Muhammad ElNokrashy, Mai Alkhamissi, and Mona Diab. 2024. Investigating cultural alignment of large language models. In Pro- ceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 12404–12422. Andy Arditi, Oscar Obeso, Aaquib Syed, Daniel Paleka, Nina Panickssery, Wes Gurnee, and Neel Nanda. 2024. Refusal in language models is mediated by a single direction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:136037–136083. Arnav Arora, Lucie-aimée Kaffee, and Isabelle Augen- stein. 2023. Probing pre-trained language models for cross-cultural differences in values. In Proceedings of the first workshop on cross-cultural considerations in NLP (C3NLP), pages 114–130. Amos Azaria and Tom Mitchell. 2023. The internal state of an llm knows when it’s lying. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 967–976. Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, and 1 others. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assis- tant with reinforcement learning from human feed- back. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862. Michiel Bakker, Martin Chadwick, Hannah Sheahan, Michael Tessler, Lucy Campbell-Gillingham, Jan Balaguer, Nat McAleese, Amelia Glaese, John Aslanides, Matt Botvinick, and 1 others. 2022. Fine- tuning language models to find agreement among hu- mans with diverse preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:38176–38189. Yonatan Belinkov. 2022. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguis- tics, 48(1):207–219. Nora Belrose, Zach Furman, Logan Smith, Danny Ha- lawi, Igor Ostrovsky, Lev McKinney, Stella Bider- man, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2023. Eliciting latent predictions from transformers with the tuned lens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08112. Lukas Berglund, Meg Tong, Max Kaufmann, Mikita Balesni, Asa Cooper Stickland, Tomasz Korbak, and Owain Evans. 2023. The reversal curse: Llms trained on "a is b" fail to learn "b is a". arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12288. Steven Bills, Nick Cammarata, Dan Mossing, Henk Tillman, Leo Gao, Gabriel Goh, Ilya Sutskever, Jan Leike, Jeff Wu, and William Saunders. 2023. Lan- guage models can explain neurons in language mod- els. OpenAI Blog. Abeba Birhane, Pratyusha Kalluri, Dallas Card, William Agnew, Ravit Dotan, and Michelle Bao. 2022. The values encoded in machine learning research. In Pro- ceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 173–184. Samuel R Bowman, Jeeyoon Hyun, Ethan Perez, Edwin Chen, Craig Pettit, Scott Heiner, Kamil ̇ e Lukoši ̄ ut ̇ e, Amanda Askell, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, and 1 oth- ers. 2022. Measuring progress on scalable over- sight for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.03540. Trenton Bricken, Adly Templeton, Joshua Batson, Brian Chen, Adam Jermyn, Tom Conerly, Nick Turner, Cem Anil, Carson Denison, Amanda Askell, and 1 others. 2023. Towards monosemanticity: Decompos- ing language models with dictionary learning. Trans- former Circuits Thread. Miles Brundage, Shahar Avin, Jasmine Wang, Haydn Belfield, Gretchen Krueger, Gillian Hadfield, Heidy Khlaaf, Jingying Yang, Helen Toner, Ruth Fong, and 1 others. 2020. Toward trustworthy ai development: mechanisms for supporting verifiable claims. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.07213. Nick Cammarata, Gabriel Goh, Shan Carter, Ludwig Schubert, Michael Petrov, and Chris Olah. 2020. Curve detectors. Distill, 5(6):e00024–003. Stephen Casper,Xander Davies,Claudia Shi, Thomas Krendl Gilbert, Jérémy Scheurer, Javier Rando, Rachel Freedman, Tomasz Korbak, David Lindner, Pedro Freire, and 1 others. 2023. Open problems and fundamental limitations of reinforce- ment learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15217. Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Mar- tic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Arthur Conmy, Augustine Mavor-Parker, Aengus Lynch, Stefan Heimersheim, and Adrià Garriga-Alonso. 2023. Towards automated circuit discovery for mech- anistic interpretability. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 36:16318–16352. Hoagy Cunningham, Aidan Ewart, Logan Riggs, Robert Huben, and Lee Sharkey. 2023. Sparse autoencoders find highly interpretable features in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08600. Nelson Elhage, Tristan Hume, Catherine Olsson, Nicholas Schiefer, Tom Henighan, Shauna Kravec, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Robert Lasenby, Dawn Drain, Carol Chen, and 1 others. 2022. Toy models of su- perposition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10652. Nelson Elhage, Neel Nanda, Catherine Olsson, Tom Henighan, Nicholas Joseph, Ben Mann, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, and 1 others. 2021.A mathematical framework for transformer circuits. Transformer Circuits Thread, 1(1):12. Iason Gabriel. 2020. Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds and machines, 30(3):411–437. Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A Smith. 2020. Realtoxici- typrompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3356–3369. Atticus Geiger, Hanson Lu, Thomas Icard, and Christo- pher Potts. 2021. Causal abstractions of neural net- works. In Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, volume 34, pages 9574–9586. Atticus Geiger, Zhengxuan Wu, Hanson Lu, Josh Rozner, Elisa Kreiss, Thomas Icard, Noah Good- man, and Christopher Potts. 2022. Inducing causal structure for interpretable neural networks. In In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 7324–7338. PMLR. Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. 2021. Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 5484–5495. Nicholas Goldowsky-Dill, Chris MacLeod, Lucas Sato, and Aryaman Arora. 2023.Localizing model behavior with path patching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05969. Michael Hanna, Ollie Liu, and Alexandre Variengien. 2023. How does gpt-2 compute greater-than?: In- terpreting mathematical abilities in a pre-trained lan- guage model. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 36:76033–76060. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2020. Measuring massive multitask language under- standing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300. Po-Sen Huang, Robert Stanforth, Johannes Welbl, Chris Dyer, Dani Yogatama, Sven Gowal, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham, and Pushmeet Kohli. 2019. Achieving verified robustness to symbol substitutions via in- terval bound propagation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4083–4093. Yangsibo Huang, Samyak Gupta, Mengzhou Xia, Kai Li, and Danqi Chen. 2023. Catastrophic jailbreak of open-source llms via exploiting generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06987. Evan Hubinger, Chris van Merwijk, Vladimir Mikulik, Joar Skalse, and Scott Garrabrant. 2019. Risks from learned optimization in advanced machine learning systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01820. Geoffrey Irving, Paul Christiano, and Dario Amodei. 2018.Ai safety via debate.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.00899. Erik Jenner, Shreyas Kapur, Vasil Georgiev, Cameron Allen, Scott Emmons, and Stuart J Russell. 2024. Evidence of learned look-ahead in a chess-playing neural network. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:31410–31437. Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, and 1 others. 2022. Language mod- els (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221. Hannah Rose Kirk, Bertie Vidgen, Paul Röttger, and Scott A Hale. 2024. The benefits, risks and bounds of personalizing the alignment of large language models to individuals. Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(4):383–392. Jan Leike, David Krueger, Tom Everitt, Miljan Martic, Vishal Maini, and Shane Legg. 2018. Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research direction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.07871. Kenneth Li, Oam Patel, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Wattenberg. 2023. Inference- time intervention: Eliciting truthful answers from a language model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:41451–41530. Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th annual meet- ing of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: long papers), pages 3214–3252. Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric mem- ories. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers), pages 9802–9822. Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. 2022. Locating and editing factual asso- ciations in gpt. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 17359–17372. Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2021. Fast model editing at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.11309. Gabriel Nicholas and Aliya Bhatia. 2023. Lost in trans- lation: Large language models in non-english content analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07377. Chris Olah, Nick Cammarata, Ludwig Schubert, Gabriel Goh, Michael Petrov, and Shan Carter. 2020. Zoom in: An introduction to circuits. Distill, 5(3):e00024– 001. Chris Olah, Alexander Mordvintsev, and Ludwig Schu- bert. 2017. Feature visualization. Distill, 2(11):e7. Catherine Olsson, Nelson Elhage, Neel Nanda, Nicholas Joseph, Nova DasSarma, Tom Henighan, Ben Mann, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, and 1 oth- ers. 2022. In-context learning and induction heads. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11895. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, and 1 others. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 27730–27744. Ethan Perez, Saffron Huang, Francis Song, Trevor Cai, Roman Ring, John Aslanides, Amelia Glaese, Nat McAleese, and Geoffrey Irving. 2022. Red teaming language models with language models. In Proceed- ings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3419–3448. Aida Ramezani and Yang Xu. 2023. Knowledge of cultural moral norms in large language models. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 428–446. Tilman Räuker, Anson Ho, Stephen Casper, and Dylan Hadfield-Menell. 2023. Toward transparent ai: A survey on interpreting the inner structures of deep neural networks. In 2023 ieee conference on secure and trustworthy machine learning (satml), pages 464– 483. IEEE. Stuart Russell. 2019. Human compatible: Artificial intelligence and the problem of control. Penguin. Eric Schwitzgebel and Mara Garza. 2015. A defense of the rights of artificial intelligences. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 39(1):98–119. Mrinank Sharma, Meg Tong, Tomasz Korbak, David Du- venaud, Amanda Askell, Samuel R Bowman, Newton Cheng, Esin Durmus, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Scott R Johnston, and 1 others. 2023. Towards understand- ing sycophancy in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13548. Joar Skalse, Nikolaus Howe, Dmitrii Krasheninnikov, and David Krueger. 2022. Defining and character- izing reward gaming. In Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 9460– 9471. Taylor Sorensen,Jared Moore,Jillian Fisher, Mitchell Gordon, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Christo- pher Michael Rytting, Andre Ye, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Nouha Dziri, and 1 others. 2024. Position: a roadmap to pluralistic alignment. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 46280–46302. Aaquib Syed, Can Rager, and Arthur Conmy. 2024. Attribution patching outperforms automated circuit discovery. In Proceedings of the 7th BlackboxNLP Workshop: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Net- works for NLP, pages 407–416. Curt Tigges, Oskar John Hollinsworth, Atticus Geiger, and Neel Nanda. 2023. Linear representations of sentiment in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15154. Alexander Matt Turner, Lisa Thiergart, Gavin Leech, David Udell, Ulisse Mini, and Monte MacDiarmid. 2024. Activation addition: Steering language models without optimization. Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel Bowman. 2023. Language models don’t always say what they think: Unfaithful explanations in chain-of- thought prompting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:74952–74965. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. Jesse Vig, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yonatan Belinkov, Sharon Qian, Daniel Nevo, Yaron Singer, and Stuart Shieber. 2020. Investigating gender bias in language models using causal mediation analysis. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:12388– 12401. Kevin Wang, Alexandre Variengien, Arthur Conmy, Buck Shlegeris, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2022. In- terpretability in the wild: a circuit for indirect ob- ject identification in gpt-2 small. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00593. Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, and 1 others. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682. Chris Wendler, Veniamin Veselovsky, Giovanni Monea, and Robert West. 2024. Do llamas work in english? on the latent language of multilingual transformers. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 15366–15394. Andy Zou, Long Phan, Sarah Chen, James Campbell, Phillip Guo, Richard Ren, Alexander Pan, Xuwang Yin, Mantas Mazeika, Ann-Kathrin Dombrowski, and 1 others. 2023. Representation engineering: A top-down approach to ai transparency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01405.