Train the Model, Not the Reader: Decodability Supervision for Verifiable Activation Explanations
Natural-language autoencoders score explanations of hidden activations by reconstruction: an explanation is deemed faithful if the activation can be regenerated from it. The test is structurally insensitive to individual false claims: if flipping a claim does not change the reconstruction, the claim is never penalized. We show the test is passed in two ways, neither faithful. On a released Qwen-2.5-7B verbalizer, explanations reconstruct well above chance while ~2% of specific claims are reconstruction-dependent, so the score tracks gist, not specific facts. Under exact synthetic ground truth,
Lineage graph
Paper → model → repo connections mined from source citations (Tier-1 exact match).
Why these links exist
Every edge carries a method, confidence, and the source snippet that justified it — so bad links are debuggable.
- FuzzySimilar title/name (fuzzy) · 84%roboflow/supervision →
“Fuzzy title match (0.92): “Train the Model, Not the Reader: Decodability Supervision fo” ≈ “roboflow/supervision””
- LinkedLinked via arxiv author · 85%Hiskias Dingeto →
“Train the Model, Not the Reader: Decodability Supervision for Verifiable Activation Explanations”
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 46%Paper claims RL for reasoning only changes 1-3% of tokens, and they replicate the gains without RL at ~1000x less compute →
