Explanation Multiplicity: Circuit-Level Interpretability Evidence Does Not Survive Defensible Analytic Variation
arXiv cs.AIen
arXiv cs.AI
AI Global WirearXiv:2608.13754v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The EU AI Act requires providers of high-risk systems to file technical documentation describing how the system reaches its decisions. Mechanistic interpretability is the obvious source of such evidence, and circuit discovery is its most developed instrument. We ask whether that evidence survives the condition under which it would be relied upon: two competent analysts, the same system, the same tool, different defensible settings. We pre-registered a crossed grid of seven analytic axes, every level taken from a published implementation, and mapped each discovered circuit through a deterministic claim map to a structured Annex IV statement. Acr
This is a short summary published by AI Global Wire. The full article is owned and hosted by arXiv cs.AI — open it there to read it in full.
Read the full story at arXiv cs.AI- Verktyg
- Forskning
- Reglering
Related AI news
- Qwen 3.8 27B shows a 17GB open-weight general purpose model can have long context, effective tool calling, strong vision ability, and competent code generation (Simon Willison/Simon Willison's Weblog)Techmeme · August 17, 2026
- Modular Cognitive Architecture Emerges in Large Language ModelsarXiv cs.AI · August 17, 2026
- No Universal Signal Predicts Sample-Level LLM Regression under Version UpdatesarXiv cs.AI · August 17, 2026
- Cross-Disciplinary Taxonomy and Modeling of Misunderstanding Generation, Amplification, and Detection, from Pragmatics to AI AgentsarXiv cs.AI · August 17, 2026
- Reward Machines for Signal Temporal LogicarXiv cs.AI · August 17, 2026
- Second Thought: Reasoning in Parallel as LLM Agents Act and ObservearXiv cs.AI · August 17, 2026