Search

Large language models (LLMs) excel at handling human queries, but they can occasionally generate flawed or unexpected responses. Understanding their internal states is crucial for understanding their successes, diagnosing their failures, and refining their capabilities. Although sparse autoencoders (SAEs) have shown promise for interpreting LLM internal representations, limited research has explored how to better explain SAE features, i.e., understanding the semantic meaning of features learned by SAE. Our theoretical analysis reveals that existing explanation methods suffer from the frequency bias issue, where they emphasize linguistic patterns over semantic concepts, while the latter is more critical to steer LLM behaviors. To address this, we propose using a fixed vocabulary set for feature interpretations and designing a mutual information-based objective, aiming to better capture the semantic meaning behind these features. We further propose two runtime steering strategies that adjust the learned feature activations based on their corresponding explanations. Empirical results show that, compared to baselines, our method provides more discourse-level explanations and effectively steers LLM behaviors to defend against jailbreak attacks. These findings highlight the value of explanations for steering LLM behaviors in downstream applications. We will release our code and data once accepted., Comment: Pre-print. 20 pages, 5 figures

The emergent phenomena of large foundation models have revolutionized natural language processing. However, evaluating these models presents significant challenges due to their size, capabilities, and deployment across diverse applications. Existing literature often focuses on individual aspects, such as benchmark performance or specific tasks, but fails to provide a cohesive process that integrates the nuances of diverse use cases with broader ethical and operational considerations. This work focuses on three key aspects: (1) Formalizing the Evaluation Process by providing a structured framework tailored to specific use-case contexts, (2) Offering Actionable Tools and Frameworks such as checklists and templates to ensure thorough, reproducible, and practical evaluations, and (3) Surveying Recent Work with a targeted review of advancements in LLM evaluation, emphasizing real-world applications.