Steering Geometry: Validating Human Value Geometry in LLM Steering Space

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where responses must reflect multiple, potentially interacting social norms and human values. Activation steering offers a lightweight alternative to training-based alignment by modifying internal activations at inference time. However, prior human-value steering methods have largely considered values in isolation, while direct composition of multiple directions relies on fixed intervention strengths that cannot respond to the model's evolving internal state. Motivated by this key observation, we introduce AIMES, a framework for adaptive multi-value activation steering. AIMES constructs layer-specific bipolar directions for moral-foundation values and uses intermediate-layer vocabulary readouts as online observers. An observer-guided controller then adapts the strength of each requested value intervention at every decoding step based on its current observed state, without training a separate value-state estimator. Across multiple instruction-tuned model families, value combinations, and intervention depths, we find that multi-value controllability varies across both value combinations and intervention locations. Compared with fixed joint steering and prompt-based steering, AIMES shows depth-dependent advantages that are broadly supported across two independent evaluators, with some variation in the precise depth at which specific control effects emerge. These advantages come with smaller realized activation-space interventions than fixed-joint steering and comparable response quality. Overall, our results suggest that online observer feedback can provide lightweight, state-aware adaptation for single-pass multi-value steering.

Inference-time steering is widely regarded as a lightweight and parameter-free mechanism for controlling large language model (LLM) behavior, and prior work has often suggested that simple activation-level interventions can reliably induce targeted behavioral changes. However, such conclusions are typically drawn under relatively relaxed evaluation settings that overlook deployment constraints, capability trade-offs, and real-world robustness. We therefore introduce FaithSteer-BENCH, a stress-testing benchmark that evaluates steering methods at a fixed deployment-style operating point through three gate-wise criteria: controllability, utility preservation, and robustness. Across multiple models and representative steering approaches, we uncover several systematic failure modes that are largely obscured under standard evaluation, including illusory controllability, measurable cognitive tax on unrelated capabilities, and substantial brittleness under mild instruction-level perturbations, role prompts, encoding transformations, and data scarcity. Gate-wise benchmark results show that existing methods do not necessarily provide reliable controllability in deployment-oriented practical settings. In addition, mechanism-level diagnostics indicate that many steering methods induce prompt-conditional alignment rather than stable latent directional shifts, further explaining their fragility under stress. FaithSteer-BENCH therefore provides a unified benchmark and a clearer analytical lens for future method design, reliability evaluation, and deployment-oriented research in steering.