Evaluating Adversarial Robustness of Concept Representations in Sparse Autoencoders
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are commonly used to interpret the internal activations of large language models (LLMs) by mapping them to human-interpretable concept representations. While existing evaluations of SAEs focus on metrics such as the reconstruction-sparsity tradeoff, human (auto-)interpretability, and feature disentanglement, they overlook a critical aspect: the robustness of concept representations to input perturbations. We argue that robustness must be a fundamental consideration for concept representations, reflecting the fidelity of concept labeling. To this end, we formulate robustness quantification as input-space optimization problems and develop a comprehensive evaluation framework featuring realistic scenarios in which adversarial perturbations are crafted to manipulate SAE representations. Empirically, we find that tiny adversarial input perturbations can effectively manipulate concept-based interpretations in most scenarios without notably affecting the base LLM's activations. Overall, our results suggest that SAE concept representations are fragile and without further denoising or postprocessing they might be ill-suited for applications in model monitoring and oversight.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 May 2025.
Builds on
24 of 32 references.
References · 24
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2024How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMscited by 533
- 2024Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety -- A Reviewcited by 415
- 2024Sparse Feature Circuits: Discovering and Editing Interpretable Causal Graphs in Language Modelscited by 412
- 2023Finding Neurons in a Haystack: Case Studies with Sparse Probingcited by 328
- 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoderscited by 283
- 2023Certifying LLM Safety against Adversarial Promptingcited by 248
- 2024Transcoders Find Interpretable LLM Feature Circuitscited by 186
- 2024Improving Dictionary Learning with Gated Sparse Autoencoderscited by 171
- 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 148
- 2025SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse Autoencoders in Language Model Interpretabilitycited by 118
12 more
- 2022Why Should Adversarial Perturbations be Imperceptible? Rethink the Research Paradigm in Adversarial NLPcited by 99
- 2024Improving Steering Vectors by Targeting Sparse Autoencoder Featurescited by 86
- 2024Towards Principled Evaluations of Sparse Autoencoders for Interpretability and Controlcited by 83
- 2024RAVEL: Evaluating Interpretability Methods on Disentangling Language Model Representationscited by 77
- 2022Post-Hoc Explanations Fail to Achieve their Purpose in Adversarial Contextscited by 53
- 2024Measuring Progress in Dictionary Learning for Language Model Interpretability with Board Game Modelscited by 51
- 2024Towards Unifying Interpretability and Control: Evaluation via Interventioncited by 28
- 2024Enhancing Neural Network Interpretability with Feature-Aligned Sparse Autoencoderscited by 25
- 2024Mechanistic Permutability: Match Features Across Layerscited by 21
- 2024Residual Stream Analysis with Multi-Layer SAEscited by 18
- 2024Evaluating Sparse Autoencoders on Targeted Concept Erasure Taskscited by 14
- 2024Formation of Representations in Neural Networkscited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 9.
11 papers.
- 2025The Dead Salmons of AI Interpretabilitycited by 10
- 2026Sanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines?cited by 10
- 2025The Anatomy of Alignment: Decomposing Preference Optimization by Steering Sparse Featurescited by 3
- 2026Toward Identifiable Sparse Autoencoderscited by 2
- 2026From Concept-Aligned Tokens to Vulnerable Features: Mechanistic Localization of Jailbreakscited by 0
- 2026Sign-Aware Gated Sparse Autoencoders: Modeling Anticorrelated Features with Bi-Jump-ReLU Activationscited by 0
- 2026Building Fast, Evaluating Slow: Pipeline Choices Dominate Autointerpretability Score Variancecited by 0
- 2026Sparse Autoencoders Encode Both Concepts and Functions: The Downstream Geometry of Feature Effectscited by 0
- 2026The Misery of Mechanistic Interpretability: A Formal Perspectivecited by 0
- 2026Representational Simplicity and Circuit Size Dissociate in a Threshold-Dependent Way: A Controlled Test via Adversarial Trainingcited by 0
- 2026Interpretable but Fragile? Robustness of Concept Bottlenecks under Geometric-Semantic Perturbationscited by 0
- 2026Interpretable but Fragile? Robustness of Concept Bottlenecks under Geometric-Semantic Perturbations29 Sep 2026
- 2026Representational Simplicity and Circuit Size Dissociate in a Threshold-Dependent Way: A Controlled Test via Adversarial Training27 Sep 2026
- 2026The Misery of Mechanistic Interpretability: A Formal Perspective14 Sep 2026
- 2026Sparse Autoencoders Encode Both Concepts and Functions: The Downstream Geometry of Feature Effects27 Jul 2026
- 2026Building Fast, Evaluating Slow: Pipeline Choices Dominate Autointerpretability Score Variance1 Jul 2026
- 2026Toward Identifiable Sparse Autoencoders29 May 2026
- 2026Sign-Aware Gated Sparse Autoencoders: Modeling Anticorrelated Features with Bi-Jump-ReLU Activations27 May 2026
- 2026From Concept-Aligned Tokens to Vulnerable Features: Mechanistic Localization of Jailbreaks25 Apr 2026
- 2026Sanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines?15 Feb 2026
- 2025The Dead Salmons of AI Interpretability21 Dec 2025
- 2025The Anatomy of Alignment: Decomposing Preference Optimization by Steering Sparse Features16 Sep 2025