Agentic self-evaluation and self-steering may scale to broadly interpret and understand internal representations and SAE features.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• If agentic self-steering evaluation proves robust, it might be used to better explain and interpret SAE features in generalhypothesis0.899
  Speculative claim about scaling introspective access to general SAE feature interpretation
• Agentic self-steering evaluationmethod0.859
  Method where Kimi K2.5 steers its own SAE features in real time and reports on its internal emotional state
• Self-evaluated emotionality and textual evaluation of SAE features predict persistence in opposite directions.claim0.839
  Surprising finding that the two evaluation methods diverge in their relationship with persistence
• Agentic Self-Steering Emotionality Evaluationmethod0.838
  Kimi K2.5 uses a tool to steer SAE features on itself in real-time and rates the emotional effect on its own internal state 0-100
• Whether the advantage of agentic self-evaluation over textual evaluation in predicting persistence is due to introspection quality or to testing of additional (including negative) steering strengthsquestion0.829
  Identified methodological gap in interpreting the self-evaluation experiment results
• Agentic self-evaluation emotionality correlates with SAE feature persistence: rho=+0.124, p=0.0001finding0.823
  Shows that features Kimi rates as more emotional via self-steering are more persistent, independent of probe construction
• Textual evaluation and agentic self-evaluation of SAE feature emotionality measure different aspects of emotional content and correlate only weakly (rho=+0.051, n.s.)claim0.823
  Interprets the near-zero correlation between the two evaluation methods as evidence they capture distinct signals
• Is the stronger persistence signal from agentic self-evaluation due to introspection per se, or due to the ability to test additional steering strengths including negative strengths?question0.813
  Mechanistic ambiguity in interpreting why self-steering evaluation outperforms textual evaluation