<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Mechanistic Data Attribution: Tracing the Training Origins of Interpretable LLM Units · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.21996/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.21996/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Mechanistic Data Attribution: Tracing the Training Origins of Interpretable LLM Units — mentioned by strangecasts</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49761900</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2601.21996:49761900</guid><pubDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 00:04:54 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; If you look at the field of mechanistic interpretability, compared to “GOFAI” like learned decision trees, an LLM is completely opaque. I think the field deserves more credit than that, there are plenty of interpretability tools like * natural language autoencoders for explanations of activations: https://transformer-circuits.pub/2026/nla/index.html (demo at https://www.neuronpedia.org/llama3.3-70b-it/nla ) * easier-to-interpret language model families like Backpack models: https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.506/ * attribution graphs to trace internal reasoning steps…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.21996/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
