MAxBench: A Multinomial Concept Recovery Benchmark
MAxBench evaluates multinomial concept recovery methods, finding affine subspaces steer most reliably but none consistently beats prompting.
MAxBench is a geometry-agnostic evaluation framework for multinomial concept representations in language models, based on sampling from recovered concept representations. It compares 10 localization methods covering 5 geometry types across 6 concepts and 4 models. Findings show affine subspaces steer more reliably than rank-one or linear subspaces due to better non-zero offsets, manifold steering is competitive where applicable, and no method consistently outperforms prompting.
- Compares 10 localization methods across 5 geometry types, 6 concepts, and 4 models
- Affine subspaces steer more reliably with better non-zero offsets
- No method consistently outperforms prompting for concept steering
Full article209 words · extracted from arxiv.org · click to collapse
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.
Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.13072