Adversarial Concept Search: Predicting Compositional Errors From Feature Geometry
Authors: Jennifer Meng Lu, Ruochen Zhang, Isabelle Lee, David Alvarez-Melis, Ellie Pavlick, Naomi Saphra
Organizations: Brown University · University of Southern California · Harvard University · Boston University
Abstract
Humans cannot always intuit what scenarios are most challenging to LLMs. Hoping to capture challenging edge cases, developers either design problems to be difficult for humans or curate extensive benchmarks. What if we could instead anticipate which scenarios a model will fail on? In this paper, we use an LLM's representational geometry to predict which concept combinations it will fail on. We attribute this compositional failure to interference between salient features. In tasks that require systematic composition - toy programmatic settings, multihop reasoning, multilingual factual recall - we find that when a pair of concepts is encoded near-orthogonally, the model reliably composes them. When their linear encodings are close, producing interference, the model fails to compose them. Our method reliably anticipates failure modes across different compositional tasks, without evaluating specific inputs. These results lay the groundwork to use representational geometry to identify high-risk examples, construct targeted stress tests, and provide a scalable foundation for active learning in real-world deployment.
Benchmarks are often used as a standard to understand LLM capabilities in different domains. However, aggregate benchmark scores provide limited insight into compositional skill gaps of LLMs and how to improve them. To make these weaknesses visible, we propose Scaffolded Task Design (STaD) framework. STaD generates controlled variations of benchmark tasks based on the concept of scaffolding, which introduces structured, incremental support in a step-by-step manner. Rather than inspecting failures individually, this approach enables systematic and scalable probing of model behavior by identifying the specific reasoning skill compositions they lack. Treating the LLM as a black box, our experiments on six models of varying sizes reveal multiple failure points in three reasoning benchmarks and highlight each model's unique and distinct skill gaps.
Sungeun An, Swanand Ravindra Kadhe, Shailja Thakur +2
Compositional generalization tests are often used to estimate the compositionality of LLMs. However, such tests have the following limitations: (1) they only focus on the output results without considering LLMs' understanding of sample compositionality, resulting in explainability defects; (2) they rely on dataset partition to form the test set with combinations unseen in the training set, suffering from combination leakage issues. In this work, we propose a novel rule-generation perspective for compositionality estimation for LLMs. It requires LLMs to generate a program as rules for dataset mapping and provides estimates of the compositionality of LLMs using complexity-based theory. The perspective addresses the limitations of compositional generalization tests and provides a new way to analyze the compositionality characterization of LLMs. We conduct experiments and analysis of existing advanced LLMs based on this perspective on a string-to-grid task, and find various compositionality characterizations and compositionality deficiencies exhibited by LLMs.
Understanding concepts is fundamental to generalization. Despite their impressive performance on a wide range of tasks, Large Language Models (LLMs) still struggle with genuine concept understanding. Prior work has evaluated conceptual understanding in LLMs using natural-language benchmarks or narrowly scoped synthetic tasks, but these settings often conflate multiple skills or lack precise control over the underlying concepts and their properties. To support controlled probing of concepts in LLMs, we design tests on their core properties: abstraction, compositionality, and groundness. We set up a concept-centric benchmark, targeting spatial concepts such as direction, distance, topology, and their compositions, and use question answering tasks serving as a proxy. We conduct extensive experiments across multiple LLM architectures and training regimes to analyze how model scale and design impact conceptual understanding. The results reveal clear limitations in current LLMs and provide insights into the factors shaping their ability to acquire and compose structured concepts. Our findings shed light on how concept-based LLMs can be redesigned for improved information access and knowledge management. The code will be available at https://github.com/rd20karim/concept-probing.