Skip to content
EventPast event

Interpretability tools can transfer across models

1 reports1 reporting sourcesLatest report

Start here

AI overview

University of Houston researchers found that interpretability tools such as refusal directions, correctness directions, and sentiment probes obtained on one model can be transferred to other models via a linear mapping fitted using only unlabeled prompts. The experiments covered all 110 ordered pairs of 11 instruction-tuned models (1B to 72B parameters) across five families, as well as between base and instruction-tuned models. Mappings fitted with ordinary questions recovered 54% of the target model's own refusal steering effect and 16% to 77% of the correctness gain; after adding unlabeled prompts in the tool's region of effect, this rose to 102% and 88% to 98%, and refusal transfer required only 16 prompts per category, while control directions recovered at most 1%. The paper proves that transfer necessarily holds when two models correspond linearly in the region covered by the mapping data, and the resulting unlabeled coverage score tracks recovery rates across more than 16,000 runs and explains previous reports of cross-domain mapping failure; transfer requires white-box access to the target model's activations.

Generated by AI from reports · Updated 5 days ago

Attention and developments

Attention, hourly

Now 40, 0% in 24 hours·Peak 43 (Nov 10 22:00)

Nov 11Nov 12Nov 13Nov 14Nov 15Now 40

Related research

This event's paper

  • Interpretability Is Not Model-Specific

    Fitting a linear mapping with unlabeled prompts to transfer interpretability tools such as refusal directions across models

    arXiv · 2026-11-09 · Deep reading

Progress timeline

Nov 10
  1. arXiv: Jailbreaks, Prompt Injection, Poisoning & DefensesSelected
    Interpretability is not model-specific

    University of Houston researchers found that interpretability tools such as refusal directions, correctness directions, and sentiment probes obtained on one model can be transferred to other models via a linear mapping fitted using only unlabeled prompts. The experiments covered all 110 ordered pairs of 11 instruction-tuned models (1B to 72B parameters) across five families, as well as between base and instruction-tuned models. Mappings fitted with ordinary questions recovered 54% of the target model's own refusal steering effect and 16% to 77% of the correctness gain; after adding unlabeled prompts in the tool's region of effect, this rose to 102% and 88% to 98%, and refusal transfer required only 16 prompts per category, while control directions recovered at most 1%. The paper proves that transfer necessarily holds when two models correspond linearly in the region covered by the mapping data, and the resulting unlabeled coverage score tracks recovery rates across more than 16,000 runs and explains previous reports of cross-domain mapping failure; transfer requires white-box access to the target model's activations.

Related discussion

No discussion links have been collected for this event yet.

Attention trend

New sources per day

1 in 6 days·most 1 (Nov 10)·today 0

  • Nov 10: 1 new sources (1 outlets, 0 accounts)
  • Nov 11: 0 new sources (0 outlets, 0 accounts)
  • Nov 12: 0 new sources (0 outlets, 0 accounts)
  • Nov 13: 0 new sources (0 outlets, 0 accounts)
  • Nov 14: 0 new sources (0 outlets, 0 accounts)
  • Nov 15: 0 new sources (0 outlets, 0 accounts)

Hourly attention

Current attention 40·Peak in the comparable period 43 (Nov 10 22:00)·Change over the comparable past 24 hours 0%

0204060Nov 1022:00Nov 1213:00Nov 1403:00Nov 1518:00