Because we have LLMs, we Can and Should Pursue Agentic Interpretability
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The publication trend indicates that the field is advancing toward specific equity issues, including automated scoring bias and performance differences between languages in medical education.
“indicating that the field is advancing toward specific equity issues, including automated scoring bias [30] or any performance difference between languages in medical education [31].”
From The impact of generative artificial intelligence tools on assessment equity for non-native English-speaking medical students: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
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
Sorted by citations
Ndacyayisenga, J. C. Y., Kidega, C., & Aciro Can, L. (2026) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-026-09303-7 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kim, B., Hewitt, J., Nanda, N., Fiedel, N., & Tafjord, O.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2506.12152
- OpenAlex
- W4415110964
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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