PreprintCited by 1Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AIAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Because we have LLMs, we Can and Should Pursue Agentic Interpretability

Open access
Kim, Been, Hewitt, John, Nanda, Neel, Fiedel, Noah, Tafjord, Oyvind·2025·arXiv

Abstract

The era of Large Language Models (LLMs) presents a new opportunity for interpretability--agentic interpretability: a multi-turn conversation with an LLM wherein the LLM proactively assists human understanding by developing and leveraging a mental model of the user, which in turn enables humans to develop better mental models of the LLM. Such conversation is a new capability that traditional `inspective' interpretability methods (opening the black-box) do not use. Having a language model that aims to teach and explain--beyond just knowing how to talk--is similar to a teacher whose goal is to teach well, understanding that their success will be measured by the student's comprehension. While agentic interpretability may trade off completeness for interactivity, making it less suitable for high-stakes safety situations with potentially deceptive models, it leverages a cooperative model to discover potentially superhuman concepts that can improve humans' mental model of machines. Agentic interpretability introduces challenges, particularly in evaluation, due to what we call `human-entangled-in-the-loop' nature (humans responses are integral part of the algorithm), making the design and evaluation difficult. We discuss possible solutions and proxy goals. As LLMs approach human parity in many tasks, agentic interpretability's promise is to help humans learn the potentially superhuman concepts of the LLMs, rather than see us fall increasingly far from understanding them.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.12152

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

  • Explainable goal-driven agents and robots-a comprehensive review

    Sado, F., Loo, C. K., Liew, W. S., Kerzel, M., & Wermter, S. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3564240 · Cited by 79 · cited 1× · see citing works

    “…is seen in steps like automated evaluation, simulated human feedback, and automated red-teaming (Bai et al., 2022; Perez et al., 2022; Song et al., 2025), automated prompt tuning (Shin et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2023), and automated interpretability (Rott Shaham et al., 2024; Sado et al., 2023).”

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Kim, B., Hewitt, J., Nanda, N., Fiedel, N., & Tafjord, O.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415110964
Cited by
1
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
large language models, human-LLM interaction, mental models, explainability, interpretability evaluation, LLM safety, multi-turn dialogue

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