Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Lucy Farnik

dblp:358/3576 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-author · 3 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
3 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 81% Reinforcement learning · 14% Language models and text generation · 5%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
1.722025
Jacobian Sparse Autoencoders: Sparsify Computations, Not Just Activations · ICML 2025
Residual Stream Analysis with Multi-Layer SAEs · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › mechanistic interpretability
sparse autoencoder
1.722025
Jacobian Sparse Autoencoders: Sparsify Computations, Not Just Activations · ICML 2025
Residual Stream Analysis with Multi-Layer SAEs · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
mechanistic interpretability
0.912025
Jacobian Sparse Autoencoders: Sparsify Computations, Not Just Activations · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
reward learning
0.812024
STARC: A General Framework For Quantifying Differences Between Reward Functions · ICLR 2024
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › language modeling › language model architecture
transformer language model
0.312025
Residual Stream Analysis with Multi-Layer SAEs · ICLR 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

tuned-lens transformations · 0.9sparse coding · 0.9sparse autoencoder · 0.9jacobian computation · 0.9pseudometrics · 0.8STARC metrics · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Residual Stream Analysis with Multi-Layer SAEs
abstract
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are a promising approach to interpreting the internal representations of transformer language models. However, SAEs are usually trained separately on each transformer layer, making it difficult to use them to study how information flows across layers. To solve this problem, we introduce the multi-layer SAE (MLSAE): a single SAE trained on the residual stream activation vectors from every transformer layer. Given that the residual stream is understood to preserve information across layers, we expected MLSAE latents to 'switch on' at a token position and remain active at later layers. Interestingly, we find that individual latents are often active at a single layer for a given token or prompt, but the layer at which an individual latent is active may differ for different tokens or prompts. We quantify these phenomena by defining a distribution over layers and considering its variance. We find that the variance of the distributions of latent activations over layers is about two orders of magnitude greater when aggregating over tokens compared with a single token. For larger underlying models, the degree to which latents are active at multiple layers increases, which is consistent with the fact that the residual stream activation vectors at adjacent layers become more similar. Finally, we relax the assumption that the residual stream basis is the same at every layer by applying pre-trained tuned-lens transformations, but our findings remain qualitatively similar. Our results represent a new approach to understanding how representations change as they flow through transformers. We release our code to train and analyze MLSAEs at https://github.com/tim-lawson/mlsae.
Tim Lawson, Lucy Farnik, Conor J. Houghton, Laurence Aitchison
ICLR2
2025 Jacobian Sparse Autoencoders: Sparsify Computations, Not Just Activations
abstract
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) have been successfully used to discover sparse and human-interpretable representations of the latent activations of language models (LLMs). However, we would ultimately like to understand the computations performed by LLMs and not just their representations. The extent to which SAEs can help us understand computations is unclear because they are not designed to “sparsify” computations in any sense, only latent activations. To solve this, we propose Jacobian sparse autoencoders (JSAEs), which yield not only sparsity in the input and output activations of a given model component but also sparsity in the computation (formally, the Jacobian) connecting them. With a naïve implementation, the Jacobians in LLMs would be computationally intractable due to their size. Our key technical contribution is thus finding an efficient way of computing Jacobians in this setup. We find that JSAEs extract a relatively large degree of computational sparsity while preserving downstream LLM performance approximately as well as traditional SAEs. We also show that JSAEs achieve a greater degree of computational sparsity on pre-trained LLMs than on the equivalent randomized LLM. This shows that the sparsity of the computational graph appears to be a property that LLMs learn through training, and suggests that JSAEs might be more suitable for understanding learned transformer computations than standard SAEs.
Lucy Farnik, Tim Lawson, Conor J. Houghton, Laurence Aitchison
ICML1
2024 STARC: A General Framework For Quantifying Differences Between Reward Functions
abstract
In order to solve a task using reinforcement learning, it is necessary to first formalise the goal of that task as a *reward function*. However, for many real-world tasks, it is very difficult to manually specify a reward function that never incentivises undesirable behaviour. As a result, it is increasingly popular to use *reward learning algorithms*, which attempt to *learn* a reward function from data. However, the theoretical foundations of reward learning are not yet well-developed. In particular, it is typically not known when a given reward learning algorithm with high probability will learn a reward function that is safe to optimise. This means that reward learning algorithms generally must be evaluated empirically, which is expensive, and that their failure modes are difficult to anticipate in advance. One of the roadblocks to deriving better theoretical guarantees is the lack of good methods for *quantifying* the difference between reward functions. In this paper we provide a solution to this problem, in the form of a class of pseudometrics on the space of all reward functions that we call STARC (STAndardised Reward Comparison) metrics. We show that STARC metrics induce both an upper and a lower bound on worst-case regret, which implies that our metrics are tight, and that any metric with the same properties must be bilipschitz equivalent to ours. Moreover, we also identify a number of issues with reward metrics proposed by earlier works. Finally, we evaluate our metrics empirically, to demonstrate their practical efficacy. STARC metrics can be used to make both theoretical and empirical analysis of reward learning algorithms both easier and more principled.
Joar Skalse, Lucy Farnik, Sumeet Ramesh Motwani, Erik Jenner, Adam Gleave, Alessandro Abate
ICLR2