When Is a Steerable Concept Representation Real? Measurement Confounds in a Cross-Family Audit of Neuroscience Parallels in LLMs
Authors: Yuqi Wu, Shengming Zhao, Jie Chen
Organizations: College of Biomedical Engineering, Fudan University
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly reported to exhibit human-like neural and cognitive signatures, including concept cells, mental number lines, and cognitive maps. These claims often rely on linear probing and activation steering applied to a single model, yet both methods are highly sensitive to measurement choices. A reported parallel may therefore reflect the model, the measurement procedure, or both. We audit four representative neuroscience-inspired paradigms across 17 models from five families, spanning 0.6B to 72B parameters. Our main experiment examines the causal steerability of concept directions. With raw activation units and a fixed layer and coefficient, steerability appears to increase with model scale, resembling an emergent capability. However, this pattern is produced by an uncalibrated pipeline rather than by a claim established in the steering literature. The trend depends jointly on raw units, the readout metric, and the operating point; correcting any one of these removes it. With residual-norm-comparable interventions and held-out operating-point selection, concept steering remains significant at every scale, but shows no significant trend across the Qwen3 series, although the confidence interval does not rule out a moderate positive slope. The remaining results are mixed. A linear geographic world map is consistently decodable in every tested checkpoint up to 72B. Number magnitude is strongly encoded, but whether individual neurons appear bell-shaped or monotonic depends on the selection criterion. Language-specific structure is localizable, but the direction of the cross-lingual asymmetry reverses under a different attribution method. These results suggest that the main constraint on AI neuroscience is not a lack of phenomena, but a lack of comparable measurements and adequate controls. We release the protocol, stimuli, and code.
Applying steering vectors to large language models (LLMs) is an efficient and effective model alignment technique, but we lack an interpretable explanation for how it works--specifically, what internal mechanisms steering vectors affect and how this results in different model outputs. To investigate the causal mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of steering vectors, we conduct a comprehensive case study on refusal. We propose a multi-token activation patching framework and discover that different steering methodologies leverage functionally interchangeable circuits when applied at the same layer. These circuits reveal that steering vectors primarily interact with the attention mechanism through the OV circuit while largely ignoring the QK circuit. Freezing all attention scores during steering drops performance by only 8.83% across three model families. A mathematical decomposition of the steered OV circuit further reveals semantically interpretable concepts, even in cases where the steering vector itself does not. Leveraging the activation patching results, we show that steering vectors can be sparsified by up to 85-96% while retaining most performance, and that different steering methodologies agree on a subset of important dimensions.
Activation-based steering provides control of LLM behavior at inference time, but the dominant paradigm reduces each concept to a single direction whose geometry is left largely unexamined. Rather than selecting a single steering direction, we use conceptors: soft projection matrices estimated from activations pooled across both poles of a bipolar concept, which preserve the concept's full multidimensional subspace. A geometric analysis shows the bipolar subspace strictly subsumes the single-vector baseline. We further show that the conceptor quota provides a parameter-free layer-selection diagnostic, predicting concept separability with Pearson correlations up to r=0.96 across three instruction-tuned models and three semantic dimensions. Beyond selection, conceptors admit a closed-form Boolean algebra (AND, OR, NOT): we evaluate conceptor compositionality on thematically related sub-concepts. Across a systematic five-axis design-space evaluation, conceptors match or outperform additive baselines at layers where concept subspaces are multi-dimensional while producing substantially fewer degenerate outputs. Conceptor steering is a geometrically principled, compositional, and practically safer alternative to single-direction steering from a limited number of contrastive pairs.
Ilias Triantafyllopoulos, Young-Min Cho, Ren Tao +6
Large language models can be steered at inference time through prompting or activation interventions, but activation steering methods often underperform compared to prompt-based approaches. We propose a framework that formulates prompt steering as a form of activation steering and investigates whether distilling successful prompt steering behavior into simpler, interpretable models can close this gap. Our analysis reveals that popular activation steering methods are not faithful to the mechanics of prompt steering, which applies strong interventions on some tokens while barely affecting others. Based on these insights, we introduce Prompt Steering Replacement (PSR) models that estimate token-specific steering coefficients from the activations themselves and are trained to imitate prompt-based interventions. Experiments on three steering benchmarks across multiple language models show that PSR models outperform existing activation steering methods, especially when controlling for high-coherence completions, and also compare favorably to prompting on AxBench and persona steering.