arXiv (All)
open access
Refit the Probe: Single-Direction Ablation Is Not a Necessity Test
Probes are routinely paired with an intervention: ablate the direction the probe found, run the model, and read the change in task accuracy, taking a large drop as evidence that the computation depends on what the probe read and a near-zero drop as evidence that it does not. Either inference require
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- SenseCheQ: Home-based Nerve Function Self-Assessment using Autonomous Quantitative Sensory Testing#214825
- When Do Cheap Probes Predict Expensive Training? Probing 3D-CT Encoders for Text Generation#620386
- When Do Cheap Probes Predict Expensive Training? Probing 3D-CT Encoders for Text Generation#618707
- Restoring CFAR Validity for Single-Channel IoT Sensor Streams: A Monte Carlo Comparison of Five Detectors under Cortex-M0+ Constraints#196426
- Traceable stiffness calibration of colloidal AFM probes for biomechanical measurements#429801
Record · ID 1052193
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive