Towards Reliable Evaluation of Behavior Steering Interventions in LLMs
Open accessAbstract
Representation engineering methods have recently shown promise for enabling efficient steering of model behavior. However, evaluation pipelines for these methods have primarily relied on subjective demonstrations, instead of quantitative, objective metrics. We aim to take a step towards addressing this issue by advocating for four properties missing from current evaluations: (i) contexts sufficiently similar to downstream tasks should be used for assessing intervention quality; (ii) model likelihoods should be accounted for; (iii) evaluations should allow for standardized comparisons across different target behaviors; and (iv) baseline comparisons should be offered. We introduce an evaluation pipeline grounded in these criteria, offering both a quantitative and visual analysis of how effectively a given method works. We use this pipeline to evaluate two representation engineering methods on how effectively they can steer behaviors such as truthfulness and corrigibility, finding that some interventions are less effective than previously reported.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Existing benchmarks for steering only evaluate a few methods at toy scales.
“Unfortunately, Pres et al. (2024); Braun et al. (2024) note that existing benchmarks for steering only evaluate a few methods at merely toy scales.”
From AxBench: Steering LLMs? Even Simple Baselines Outperform Sparse Autoencoders (2025) · cites this paper as Pres et al. (2024)
Section 2 (page unavailable) criticizes existing steering evaluations for using multiple-choice prompts rather than contexts sufficiently like open-ended generation, and the Introduction says standardized evaluation protocols are lacking. But the paper does not establish that existing benchmarks evaluate only a few methods or operate at 'toy scales'; its evaluation of two methods is its own, not a description of all existing benchmarks. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThere is no benchmark for making direct comparisons between representation-based steering proposals.
“At present, there is no benchmark for making direct comparisons between these proposals.”
From AxBench: Steering LLMs? Even Simple Baselines Outperform Sparse Autoencoders (2025) · cites this paper as Pres et al. (2024)
The Discussion and Conclusion (page unavailable) says existing reports lack a standardized evaluation pipeline, supporting the concern about comparisons. But the paper proposes a pipeline and, in the Introduction (page unavailable), says it uses that protocol to evaluate multiple representation-engineering interventions. It does not establish the broader claim that no benchmark exists for direct comparisons between proposals. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- Tom B Brown. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165, 2020. · arXiv
- Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(240):1- 113, 2023.
- Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timo- thée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. · arXiv
- Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Premkumar Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. The woman worked as a babysitter: On biases in language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01326, 2019. · arXiv
- Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. RealToxi- cityPrompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In Trevor Cohn, Yulan He, and Yang Liu, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3356-3369, Online, November 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Nikhil Kandpal, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. Universal adver- sarial triggers for attacking and analyzing NLP. In Kentaro Inui, Jing Jiang, Vincent Ng, and Xiaojun Wan, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Process- ing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2153-2162, Hong Kong, China, November 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Nicholas Carlini, Milad Nasr, J Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson. Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15043, 2023. · arXiv
- Alexander Wei, Nika Haghtalab, and Jacob Steinhardt. Jailbroken: How does LLM safety training fail? In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023.
- Nicholas Carlini, Milad Nasr, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Matthew Jagielski, Irena Gao, Pang Wei Koh, Daphne Ippolito, Florian Tramèr, and Ludwig Schmidt. Are aligned neural networks adversarially aligned? In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023.
- Samyak Jain, Robert Kirk, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Robert P. Dick, Hidenori Tanaka, Tim Rocktäschel, Edward Grefenstette, and David Krueger. Mechanistically analyzing the effects of fine-tuning on procedurally defined tasks. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
- Andrew Lee, Xiaoyan Bai, Itamar Pres, Martin Wattenberg, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, and Rada Mihalcea. A mechanistic understanding of alignment algorithms: A case study on DPO and toxicity. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024.
- Andy Zou, Long Phan, Sarah Chen, James Campbell, Phillip Guo, Richard Ren, Alexander Pan, Xuwang Yin, Mantas Mazeika, Ann-Kathrin Dombrowski, et al. Representation engineering: A top-down approach to ai transparency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01405, 2023. · arXiv
- Alexander Matt Turner, Lisa Thiergart, Gavin Leech, David Udell, Juan J Vazquez, Ulisse Mini, and Monte MacDiarmid. Activation addition: Steering language models without optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10248, 2023. · arXiv
- Nina Panickssery, Nick Gabrieli, Julian Schulz, Meg Tong, Evan Hubinger, and Alexander Matt Turner. Steering llama 2 via contrastive activation addition. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv-2312, 2023.
- Daniel Chee Hian Tan, David Chanin, Aengus Lynch, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, Dimitrios Kanoulas, Brooks Paige, and Robert Kirk. Analyzing the generalization and reliability of steering vectors. In ICML 2024 Workshop on Mechanistic Interpretability, 2024.
- Kenneth Li, Oam Patel, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Wattenberg. Inference- time intervention: Eliciting truthful answers from a language model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
- Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020.
- Joshua Engels, Isaac Liao, Eric J Michaud, Wes Gurnee, and Max Tegmark. Not all language model features are linear. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14860, 2024. · arXiv
- John Hewitt, Kawin Ethayarajh, Percy Liang, and Christopher Manning. Conditional probing: measuring usable information beyond a baseline. In Marie-Francine Moens, Xuanjing Huang, Lucia Specia, and Scott Wen-tau Yih, editors, Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1626-1639, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, November 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. Transformers: State- of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations, pages 38-45, 2020.
- Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
- OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
- Eric Todd, Millicent Li, Arnab Sen Sharma, Aaron Mueller, Byron C Wallace, and David Bau. Function vectors in large language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AxBench: Steering LLMs? Even Simple Baselines Outperform Sparse Autoencoders
Wu, Z., Arora, A., Geiger, A., Wang, Z., Huang, J., Jurafsky, D., Manning, C. D., & Potts, C. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.17148
“Unfortunately, Pres et al. (2024); Braun et al. (2024) note that existing benchmarks for steering only evaluate a few methods at merely toy scales.”
- Authors
- Pres, I., Ruis, L., Lubana, E. S., & Krueger, D.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Harvard University (US)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2410.17245
- OpenAlex
- W4404261821
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/S021566/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- large language models, representation engineering, intervention evaluation, evaluation metrics, baseline comparison, honesty, corrigibility
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
