Does Steering Break Your Model? A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Suite for LLM Steering Methods

Haotian Yang; Huikang Jiang; Yucheng Wu; Wen-Jie Jiang; Chenpeng Wang; Yibin Lou; Liangming Pan

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.07722

Does Steering Break Your Model? A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Suite for LLM Steering Methods

Haotian Yang·Huikang Jiang·Yucheng Wu·Wen-Jie Jiang·Chenpeng Wang·Yibin Lou·Liangming Pan

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Activation steering provides a lightweight and flexible way to control large language model (LLM) behavior. However, effective steering requires more than inducing the intended behavior: it should also limit unintended changes and remain robust across inputs and training data. Existing evaluations cover these dimensions only in fragments. As a result, the trade-offs between efficacy and side effects have not been systematically characterized. We introduce SteerScope, a two-axis, multi-dimensional evaluation suite that jointly characterizes steering outcomes and method properties through 15 metrics. We score target efficacy and side effects on language quality, task capabilities, and safety and reliability, and further assess generalization and data dependence through steering-specific metrics for sample efficiency and sample sensitivity. Rather than comparing methods at a single operating point, we characterize the trade-offs between efficacy and side effects. Under matched models, tasks, and evaluation protocols, we benchmark 23 methods spanning 4 families, including prompting, LoRA, and SFT as baseline methods, and release the suite as an extensible codebase. We find that current activation steering methods do not yet surpass the Prompt Steering baseline in their overall balance between steering efficacy and side effects: across both model scales, no evaluated activation steering method achieves higher efficacy without incurring greater composite side effects. We further uncover a consistent coupling between steering efficacy and side effects. Under OOD prompts, target efficacy is often preserved, whereas side effects tend to become more pronounced, particularly through declines in instruction relevance and fluency. Methods also exhibit sharply different sample-efficiency profiles.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Haotian Yang, Huikang Jiang, Yucheng Wu, Wen-Jie Jiang, Chenpeng Wang, Yibin Lou, Liangming Pan. 2026-10-06. Does Steering Break Your Model? A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Suite for LLM Steering Methods. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.07722

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Boosting Large Language Models with Mask Fine-Tuning

The large language model (LLM) is typically integrated into the mainstream optimization protocol. However, it remains underexplored whether maintaining the model integrity is \textit{indispensable} for promising performance. In this work, we introduce Mask Fine-Tuning (MFT), a novel LLM fine-tuning paradigm demonstrating that carefully breaking the model's structural integrity can surprisingly improve performance without updating model weights. MFT learns and applies binary masks to well-optimized models, using the standard LLM fine-tuning objective as supervision. Based on fully fine-tuned models, MFT uses the same fine-tuning datasets to achieve consistent performance gains across domains and backbones (e.g., an average gain of 2.70/4.15 on IFEval with LLaMA2-7B/3.1-8B). Detailed ablation studies and analyses examine the proposed MFT from different perspectives, including the sparse ratio and the loss surface. Additionally, when deployed on well-trained models, MFT is compatible with other LLM optimization procedures to improve overall model performance. Furthermore, this study extends the masking operation beyond its conventional use in network pruning for model compression to encompass a broader range of model capabilities.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Too Categorical to be Human: Emotion Concepts in LLMs and Humans

Understanding human emotions is central to user-facing AI applications, safety alignment, and the simulation of human behavior. As emotional stimuli shape high-stakes behavior in Large Language Models (LLMs), there is increasing interest in how models represent emotion concepts internally. Mechanistic accounts of these representations, however, cannot be compared directly against humans: emotion processing in humans is highly distributed and yields no equivalent neural representation. To understand whether LLMs internalize emotion concepts in a way similar to humans, we propose characterizing the abstract concept of an emotion using external behavioral signatures, which we term behavioral representations. Using the theory of cognitive appraisals, which enables representing emotional situations along interpretable evaluative dimensions, we create a benchmark dataset of emotional scenarios spanning 15 emotion categories. We elicit behavioral representations of emotion concepts from LLMs and humans using our benchmark, and study their structural similarity. We find that LLMs represent emotion concepts more categorically, homogeneously, and determinately than humans, representing a single emotion concept with less internal diversity, and place different emotions further apart. The categorical structure of representations in LLMs is further robust to contextual variation, including with different task framing and demographic personas. Analyzing model checkpoints across different training stages, we also find that the discretized nature of representations appears after the mid-training stage itself and is unaffected by different post-training strategies. Through our results, we highlight a key difference in how LLMs behaviorally represent emotion concepts, curbing the subjectivity inherent to the human experience of emotions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

FedCoT: Communication-Efficient Federated Reasoning Enhancement for Large Language Models

Enhancing LLM reasoning in federated settings is nontrivial due to stringent computational, communication, and privacy constraints, especially in healthcare, where clinically consequential decisions require not only accuracy but also interpretable, auditable rationales to meet safety, accountability, and regulatory requirements. Conventional federated fine-tuning largely imitates final answers rather than cultivating step-by-step reasoning, often relying on privacy-sensitive centralized distillation and still incurring substantial communication overhead. We address this gap with \textbf{\ours{}}, a federated reasoning framework that combines lightweight chain-of-thought resampling with a compact discriminator for selection, and client-aware LoRA stacking with weighted classifier aggregation to accommodate heterogeneity while reducing aggregation noise and communication; clients generate candidate chains and supervision locally, and only lightweight modules are aggregated on the server. Experiments on medical reasoning benchmarks show consistent gains under tight resource budgets while keeping data local and respecting privacy, offering an interpretable and resource-efficient solution. Our code is made publicly available at https://github.com/DIaacKr/FedCoT

cs.CL↗