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.

Memory is a critical component in large language model (LLM)-based agents, enabling them to store and retrieve past executions to improve task performance over time. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study on how memory management choices impact the LLM agents’ behavior, especially their long-term performance. Specifically, we focus on two fundamental memory management operations that are widely used by many agent frameworks—memory addition and deletion—to systematically study their impact on the agent behavior. Through our quantitative analysis, we find that LLM agents display an *experience-following* property: high similarity between a task input and the input in a retrieved memory record often results in highly similar agent outputs. Our analysis further reveals two significant challenges associated with this property: *error propagation*, where inaccuracies in past experiences compound and degrade future performance, and *misaligned experience replay*, where some seemingly correct executions can provide limited or even misleading value as experiences. Through controlled experiments, we demonstrate the importance of regulating experience quality within the memory bank and show that future task evaluations can serve as free quality labels for stored memory. Our findings offer insights into the behavioral dynamics of LLM agent memory systems and provide practical guidance for designing memory components that support robust, long-term agent performance.

As large language models continue to advance, ensuring their trustworthiness is critical. However, inaccessible real-world ground truth labels pose a significant challenge in high-stakes domains. Recent studies have highlighted weak-to-strong generalization, where a strong model trained only on a weak model’s labels surpasses the weak model in task performance. Yet, whether critical trustworthiness properties such as robustness, fairness, and privacy can generalize similarly remains an open question. This is the first work to study this question by examining if a stronger model can enhance trustworthiness when fine-tuned on a weaker model’s labels, a paradigm we term weak-to-strong trustworthiness. To address this, we introduce two fundamental fine-tuning strategies that leverage trustworthiness regularization during the fine-tuning of the weak model and the weak-to-strong transfer. Our experimental evaluation on real-world datasets reveals that while some trustworthiness properties, such as fairness, adversarial robustness, and OOD robustness, show significant improvement in trustworthiness generalization when both models were regularized, others, like privacy, do not exhibit signs of weak-to-strong trustworthiness. Our results highlight the potential of weak-to-strong trustworthiness as a practical pathway for enhancing the trustworthiness of increasingly capable AI systems, even under imperfect real-world conditions.

Large language models have emerged as powerful tools for general intelligence, showcasing advanced natural language processing capabilities that find applications across diverse domains. Despite their impressive performance, recent studies have highlighted the potential for significant enhancements in LLMs’ task-specific performance through fine-tuning strategies like Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and Quantized Low-Rank Adapters (Q-LoRA) method. However, previous works have shown that while fine-tuning offers significant performance gains, it also leads to challenges such as catastrophic forgetting and privacy and safety risks. To this end, there has been little to no work in *understanding the impact of fine-tuning on the reasoning capabilities of LLMs*. Our research investigates the effect of fine-tuning on the reasoning abilities of LLMs, addressing critical questions regarding the impact of task-specific fine-tuning on overall reasoning capabilities, the influence of fine-tuning on Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning performance, and the implications for the faithfulness of CoT reasonings. By exploring these dimensions, our study shows the impact of fine-tuning on LLM reasoning capabilities, where the faithfulness of CoT reasoning, on average across four datasets, decreases, highlighting potential shifts in internal mechanisms of the LLMs resulting from fine-tuning processes.

Accurate uncertainty quantification is crucial for the safe deployment of machine learning models, and prior research has demonstrated improvements in the calibration of modern language models (LMs). We study in-context learning (ICL), a prevalent method for adapting static LMs through tailored prompts, and examine the balance between performance and calibration across a broad spectrum of natural language understanding and reasoning tasks. Through comprehensive experiments, we observe that, with an increasing number of ICL examples, models initially exhibit increased miscalibration before achieving better calibration and miscalibration tends to arise in low-shot settings. Moreover, we find that methods aimed at improving usability, such as fine-tuning and chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, can lead to miscalibration and unreliable natural language explanations. Furthermore, we explore recalibration techniques and find that a scaling-binning calibrator can reduce calibration errors consistently.

Recent literature has suggested the potential of using large language models (LLMs) to make classifications for tabular tasks. However, LLMs have been shown to exhibit harmful social biases that reflect the stereotypes and inequalities present in society. To this end, as well as the widespread use of tabular data in many high-stake applications, it is important to explore the following questions: what sources of information do LLMs draw upon when making classifications for tabular tasks; whether and to what extent are LLM classifications for tabular data influenced by social biases and stereotypes; and what are the consequential implications for fairness?Through a series of experiments, we delve into these questions and show that LLMs tend to inherit social biases from their training data which significantly impact their fairness in tabular classification tasks. Furthermore, our investigations show that in the context of bias mitigation, though in-context learning and finetuning have a moderate effect, the fairness metric gap between different subgroups is still larger than that in traditional machine learning models, such as Random Forest and shallow Neural Networks. This observation emphasizes that the social biases are inherent within the LLMs themselves and inherited from their pretraining corpus, not only from the downstream task datasets. Besides, we demonstrate that label-flipping of in-context examples can significantly reduce biases, further highlighting the presence of inherent bias within LLMs.