Natural Language Autoencoders (NLAs) express a model's internal activations in the form of readable text. The verbalizer turns an activation into an English explanation; the reconstructor then converts that explanation back into an activation, and the explanation is considered successful if the round trip brings back the original activation. We claim that this criterion evaluates whether the information is sufficient and does not address descriptive faithfulness. A sentence can contain sufficient information to make it possible to identify an activation even if it wrongly explains what the activation does: in the case of reconstruction, the primary aim is to accurately identify the activations and not to describe them. This issue has the same structure as the chain-of-thought faithfulness problem, in which verbal output that has been trained to go with a process is taken as a report on that process, and it parallels the dissociation between an individual's introspective report and the actual governing process as documented in human psychology. Although proposed as interpretability tools for the purpose of alignment, NLAs reintroduce, through unverified explanations, the epistemic problem that they were intended to resolve.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: NLAs: the same explanation with and without its characterizing clause, here shown for the limiting case in which the clause adds nothing to the reconstruction.
Figure 2: Reconstruction: two sentences and one state, idealized so both reconstruct equally well. One characterizes the state’s role in the computation, and the other only points at it.
Large language model (LLM) interpretability studies how internal representations and computations produce outputs, and how they can be explained or controlled.
Natural Language Autoencoders (NLAs) produce unsupervised text explanations of a model's activations: a verbalizer describes an activation and a reconstructor learns to recover it from this text. Under the established point-reconstruction NLA training recipe, explanations become more useful for predicting model behavior while also increasingly introducing unsupported details and exhibiting writing defects. To assess these changes separately, we introduce a standardized evaluation framework for unstructured NLA explanations, measuring information recoverable from explanations, contextual support for their claims, and writing quality. To address confabulation and writing defects, we move beyond predicting a single activation: explanations can distinguish distributions of possible activations even when their means and optimal point-reconstruction rewards are identical. We introduce Flow-NLA, which models the distribution of activations compatible with an explanation and trains the verbalizer using a diffusion likelihood bound. Across Qwen, Gemma, and Apertus, this richer signal retains the utility gains of point reconstruction while curbing the growth of confabulation and writing defects, opening up a direction for improving activation-derived training to encourage more informative, supported, and readable explanations. Code and evaluation prompts will be made publicly available upon acceptance.
Gert Lek, Zixuan Xia, Pin-Yu Chen +1
Universit´e de Neuchˆatel · Universität Bern · IBM Research +1
Natural Language Autoencoders (NLAs) are proposed as oversight tools for language models: an Activation Verbaliser (AV) writes an English explanation of an activation vector, and an Activation Reconstructor (AR) maps the explanation back to a vector. Their value for oversight depends on a human monitor being able to tell a true account of an activation from a false one, given the AV's explanation. We formalise NLA training and NLA oversight deployment as two different referential games from Emergent Communication: training is a generative referential game, while oversight is a discriminative, multi-modal, partially-observable referential game played over a many-to-many relation between the monitored language model's activations and the accounts that are true of them. The gap between the two games predicts that AV's explanations will identify which activation they describe without discriminating its true account from closely matched false ones, since training never asks explanations to rule anything out. Using the NLA's own AR as a maximally-sympathetic surrogate monitor model, we experimentally confirm this theoretical insight on one released checkpoint: true accounts beat accounts of other activations in all 320 comparisons, but beat fluent rivals differing in a single claim only 60.2% of the time (standard error 6.7%, chance at 50%, n=35). A meaning-preserving rewrite by an uninvolved model costs only 2.1% of the distance to another activation's account, so the failure is not due to the NLA pair having developed private conventions in the AV's explanations. Our rival accounts test only transcript-level truths, which the monitored language model's conversation settles, so these results bound the easiest case and leave claims about the monitored model's own processing untested. We state conjectures that would make both results consequences of the framework.
Activation verbalizers translate the internal representations of large language models into human-readable text. The recently proposed natural language autoencoders (NLAs) learn this by reconstructing activations through a natural language bottleneck. However, it remains unclear how well these methods generalize beyond the setting they were trained for. Here, we study this question for NLAs along four closely related questions: (i) Do NLA verbalizations exhibit compositional structure with respect to their input? (ii) Do NLAs generalize to finetuned versions of the model they were trained for? (iii) Can NLAs recover finetuning objectives in model diffing? (iv) Can NLAs be specialized for model diffing? Across four models from three families, our experiments provide evidence supporting a largely positive answer to all four questions. Specifically, verbalizations of composed analogy activations mostly name the target while rarely mentioning the subtracted word, and an NLA can be reused on lightweight finetunes of its original model without retraining, with reconstruction quality degrading noticeably only for the largest model. Verbalizing activation differences between Taboo model organisms and their original models recovers the concealed secret word for most organisms, and reinforcement learning on activation differences further improves this recovery on held-out organisms. We also find that NLAs can recover the finetuning objective without the finetuned model generating any token, since the most informative token positions precede the user prompt. NLAs do not yet match state-of-the-art model diffing methods on the emergent misalignment detection task, but outperform a blackbox baseline. Our findings suggest that NLAs can meaningfully verbalize differences in activation space, rendering NLAs a promising direction for future work.
Andrea Blasi Núñez, Gianluca Barmina, Federico Torrielli +3