The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards Best Practices of Activation Patching in Language Models: Metrics and Methods
Abstract
Mechanistic interpretability seeks to understand the internal mechanisms of machine learning models, where localization -- identifying the important model components -- is a key step. Activation patching, also known as causal tracing or interchange intervention, is a standard technique for this task (Vig et al., 2020), but the literature contains many variants with little consensus on the choice of hyperparameters or methodology. In this work, we systematically examine the impact of methodological details in activation patching, including evaluation metrics and corruption methods. In several settings of localization and circuit discovery in language models, we find that varying these hyperparameters could lead to disparate interpretability results. Backed by empirical observations, we give conceptual arguments for why certain metrics or methods may be preferred. Finally, we provide recommendations for the best practices of activation patching going forwards.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Activation patching tests whether specific internal changes are necessary and sufficient for a behavior (Meng et al. 2022; Yeo, Satapathy, and Cambria 2024; Zhang and Nanda 2023).”
From When Truth Is Overridden: Uncovering the Internal Origins of Sycophancy in Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as Zhang and Nanda 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Hydra Effect: Emergent Self-repair in Language Model Computations
McGrath, T., Rahtz, M., Kramar, J., Mikulik, V., & Legg, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.15771 · Cited by 140
Dissecting Recall of Factual Associations in Auto-Regressive Language Models
Geva, M., Bastings, J., Filippova, K., & Globerson, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.751 · Cited by 53
Cited by
When Truth Is Overridden: Uncovering the Internal Origins of Sycophancy in Large Language Models
Wang, K., Li, J., Yang, S., Zhang, Z., & Wang, D. (2026) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i39.40645 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, F., & Nanda, N.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2309.16042
- References
- 2
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards Best Practices of Activation Patching in Language Models: Metrics and Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2309.16042
- The paper
- Zhang, F., & Nanda, N. (2023). Towards Best Practices of Activation Patching in Language Models: Metrics and Methods. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2309.16042
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.