Understanding how neural models represent human-interpretable concepts is challenging. Prior work has explored linear concept subspaces from diverse perspectives, such as probing and concept erasure. We introduce a unified framework to study these subspaces along two axes: \textit{containment}, which tests if a concept is fully represented in a subspace but not outside it, and \textit{disentanglement}, which tests for isolation from other concepts. In experiments on both text and speech models, we first highlight that concept subspaces may not be uniquely determined, and discuss the implications for concept subspace analysis. Then, we compare properties of concept subspaces estimated using five estimators, proposed in different communities. We find that (1) the choice of estimator impacts the containment and disentanglement properties; (2) the state-of-the-art concept erasure method, LEACE, performs well on both testing axes, but still struggles to generalize to unseen data; and (3) in HuBERT speech representations, phone information is both contained and disentangled from speaker information, while speaker information is hard to contain in a compact subspace, despite being disentangled from phones.
Neural networks are increasingly employed to identify both well-defined and ambiguous concepts, yet output-level metrics reveal little about how those concepts are represented internally. Our study asks if these networks exhibit \textit{conceptual separation}: if examples of the same concept form coherent representations, and whether related concepts lie closer together in the representation space. We examine this conceptual organisation in Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Large Language Models (LLMs) through geometric and distributional analysis of their internal activations. In CNNs, familiar ImageNet concepts form coherent and semantically ordered representations, while this coherence weakens for unseen concepts and suffers within-class domain shift. In LLMs, clearly distinct domains remain well separated, related subdomains move closer together, and the distinction between ambiguous topics collapses at both the mean and covariance level. These results suggest that conceptual separation can reveal structure that output accuracy alone cannot, and may serve as a useful diagnostic of how robustly a model represents the concepts it is asked to identify. Code and data available on \href{https://github.com/JaeeRoshniCapstoneProject/Are-You-Thinking-What-I-m-Thinking-Examining-Conceptual-Separation-in-Neural-Architectures}{GitHub}.
Concept erasure aims to remove a target concept from a representation while preserving the other information encoded in it. This is difficult because representations encode many concepts that are often correlated with the erasure target, so removing the target risks damaging them. We propose the Manifold Constraint Hypothesis (MCH): if natural representations concentrate on a structured, lower-dimensional manifold, then interventions should be constrained to that manifold and better preserve other information encoded in the representation during interventions. We instantiate MCH in a new concept erasure method: MANifold aware Concept Erasure (MANCE). MANCE performs iterative updates to the representations using signals from a classifier that predicts a target concept. We estimate the manifold using representations obtained from natural inputs, and then we project the concept removal update to the estimated manifold. We perform extensive evaluation on 119 settings spanning text and vision, including 13 language models, three NLP concepts, and 40 CelebA-CLIP attributes. Employing MANCE on top of previous methods shows consistent improved leakage results. We also introduce MANCE+ and MANCE++, which prepend a closed-form erasure algorithm before employing MANCE, achieving better leakage--surgicality tradeoffs relative to matched full-space updates. MANCE++, our best method, achieves state-of-the-art results on nonlinear concept erasure. These results support MCH in the erasure setting: interventions should be constrained to the natural representation manifold.
Fine-grained control of language model behaviors (e.g., steering) is among the more actionable outcomes of interpretability research. For binary concepts such as refusal, a single direction in activation space often suffices for steering. However, many concepts are not binary: Animals and Countries contain many subcategories, each with multiple instances. For these concepts, the search space over possible representation geometries is far larger than for binary concepts; it is thus not clear what geometries are most appropriate, nor what methods are most effective at recovering them. In this work, we introduce MAxBench, a geometry-agnostic evaluation framework for multinomial concept representations based on sampling from the recovered concept representation. We use MAxBench to compare 10 localization methods (covering 5 geometry types) across 6 concepts and 4 models. Using this framework, we find that (i) affine subspaces steer more reliably and have greater recall than rank-one or linear subspaces; (ii) much of this advantage is due to better non-zero offsets rather than the choice of bases; (iii) manifold steering is competitive with the best methods when applicable; and (iv) no method consistently outperforms prompting, in alignment with prior findings on binary concepts. These findings underscore the importance of expanding the scope of interpretability research and meta-evaluation to concepts with more varied structure.