If agentic self-steering evaluation proves robust, it might be used to better explain and interpret SAE features in general

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

• Agentic self-evaluation and self-steering may scale to broadly interpret and understand internal representations and SAE features.claim0.899
  Forward-looking claim about the potential of model introspection as an interpretability tool
• Agentic self-steering evaluationmethod0.860
  Method where Kimi K2.5 steers its own SAE features in real time and reports on its internal emotional state
• Agentic Self-Steering Emotionality Evaluationmethod0.827
  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
• Self-evaluated emotionality and textual evaluation of SAE features predict persistence in opposite directions.claim0.825
  Surprising finding that the two evaluation methods diverge in their relationship with persistence
• Agentic self-evaluation emotionality correlates with SAE feature persistence: rho=+0.124, p=0.0001finding0.821
  Shows that features Kimi rates as more emotional via self-steering are more persistent, independent of probe construction
• 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 strengthsquestion0.816
  Identified methodological gap in interpreting the self-evaluation experiment results
• Agentic self-evaluation of SAE feature emotionality correlates with residual persistence: ρ = +0.124, p = 0.0001 in Kimi K2.5.finding0.810
  Shows that model self-report of emotion predicts long-range feature persistence
• 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?question0.802
  Mechanistic ambiguity in interpreting why self-steering evaluation outperforms textual evaluation