Causal Differentiating Concepts: Interpreting LM Behavior via Causal Representation Learning
Navita Goyal, Hal Daumé III, Alexandre Drouin, Dhanya Sridhar
Abstract
Language model activations entangle concepts that mediate their behavior, making it difficult to interpret these factors, which has implications for generalizability and robustness. We introduce an approach for disentangling these concepts without supervision. Existing methods for concept discovery often rely on external labels, contrastive prompts, or known causal structures, which limits their scalability and biases them toward predefined, easily annotatable features. In contrast, we propose a new unsupervised algorithm that identifies causal differentiating concepts-interpretable latent directions in LM activations that must be changed to elicit a different model behavior. These concepts are discovered using a constrained contrastive learning objective, guided by the insight that eliciting a target behavior requires only sparse changes to the underlying concepts. We formalize this notion and show that, under a particular assumption about the sparsity of these causal differentiating concepts, our method learns disentangled representations that align with human-interpretable factors influencing LM decisions. We empirically show the ability of our method to recover ground-truth causal factors in synthetic and semi-synthetic settings. Additionally, we illustrate the utility of our method through a case study on refusal behavior in language models. Our approach offers a scalable and interpretable lens into the internal workings of LMs, providing a principled foundation for interpreting language model behavior.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 9604f7a4-319a-4ef3-abfd-99d542c5cdb5Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on28
- Concept Bottleneck ModelsPang Wei Koh, Thao Nguyen, Yew Siang Tang, Stephen Mussmann et al.ICML 2020 · 1,233 citations
- Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language ModelsRobert Huben, Hoagy Cunningham, Logan Riggs Smith, Aidan Ewart et al.ICLR 2024 · 1,072 citations
- HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust RefusalMantas Mazeika, Long Phan, Xuwang Yin, Andy Zou et al.ICML 2024 · 1,031 citations
- Causal Abstractions of Neural NetworksAtticus Geiger, Hanson Lu, Thomas Icard, Christopher PottsNeurIPS 2021 · 516 citations
- Catastrophic Jailbreak of Open-source LLMs via Exploiting GenerationYangsibo Huang, Samyak Gupta, Mengzhou Xia, Kai Li et al.ICLR 2024 · 481 citations
Related papers
- SOM Directions Are Better than One: Multi-Directional Refusal Suppression in Language ModelsGiorgio Piras, Raffaele Mura, Fabio Brau, Luca Oneto et al.AAAI 2026 · 4 citations
- The Geometry of Refusal in Large Language Models: Concept Cones and Representational IndependenceTom Wollschläger, Jannes Elstner, Simon Geisler, Vincent Cohen-Addad et al.ICML 2025
- Enhancing Automated Interpretability with Output-Centric Feature DescriptionsYoav Gur-Arieh, Roy Mayan, Chen Agassy, Atticus Geiger et al.ACL 2025
- From Causal to Concept-Based Representation LearningGoutham Rajendran, Simon Buchholz, Bryon Aragam, Bernhard Schölkopf et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 37 citations
- Constructing Interpretable Features from Compositional Neuron GroupsOr David Shafran, Atticus Geiger, Mor GevaACL 2026 · 4 citations
