aiqbench analysis
SteerCheck introduces a rigorous attribution audit framework that exposes significant alignment leakage in activation-steering interventions, particularly within Qwen models. The study demonstrates that common control methods often fail to distinguish specific concept effects from off-target KL shifts, necessitating stricter reporting of exchangeability assumptions and construction diagnostics. This work advances the safety field by providing auditable metrics for evaluating whether steering techniques genuinely isolate intended behaviors without contaminating protected tails.
SteerCheck: Attribution Specificity and Alignment Leakage in Activation-Steering Audits
arXiv:2608.24335v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Activation steering can change behaviour without establishing that the effect is specific to the intended concept. We introduce SteerCheck, a preregistered attribution audit that matches off-target KL and separates mean, protected-tail, polarity, transfer, and semantic claims. Exact replay of 960 Qwen3-14B interventions reveals complementary limits of common controls: isotropic directions occupy a narrow near-orthogonal region, whereas sign-randomized same-construction directions often retain substantial target alignment. Effect is strongly associated with signed cosine within the sign-randomized family ($\rho=.94$); $25.3\%$ of its draws exceed cosine $.5$, and every draw exceeding the observed mean effect has cosine above $.80$. This alignment leakage does not by itself invalidate a conditional randomization test; it limits what the comparator can distinguish and motivates reporting exchangeability assumptions, a construction diagnostic $A$, and the empirical cosine distribution. The primary Qwen complete gate remains negative because the protected tail fails all families. On independent data, continuous margin transfers only in Qwen and accuracy transfers in no selected cell. Prospectively registered language controls pass the complete gate in Qwen and DeepSeek, while a passing DeepSeek detox comparator rules out categorical separation; all nominal passes are sensitive to $\Gamma=1.10$. Frozen three-rater open-generation evaluation supports factual correction in DeepSeek but not Qwen; the automatic judge fails calibration (macro-F1 $.562$), so null-wide semantic results remain descriptive. SteerCheck makes these conditional and mixed conclusions auditable.
Abstract:Activation steering can change behaviour without establishing that the effect is specific to the intended concept. We introduce SteerCheck, a preregistered attribution audit that matches off-target KL and separates mean, protected-tail, polarity, transfer, and semantic claims. Exact replay of 960 Qwen3-14B interventions reveals complementary limits of common controls: isotropic directions occupy a narrow near-orthogonal region, whereas sign-randomized same-construction directions often retain substantial target alignment. Effect is strongly associated with signed cosine within the sign-randomized family ($\rho=.94$); $25.3\%$ of its draws exceed cosine $.5$, and every draw exceeding the observed mean effect has cosine above $.80$. This alignment leakage does not by itself invalidate a conditional randomization test; it limits what the comparator can distinguish and motivates reporting exchangeability assumptions, a construction diagnostic $A$, and the empirical cosine distribution. The primary Qwen complete gate remains negative because the protected tail fails all families. On independent data, continuous margin transfers only in Qwen and accuracy transfers in no selected cell. Prospectively registered language controls pass the complete gate in Qwen and DeepSeek, while a passing DeepSeek detox comparator rules out categorical separation; all nominal passes are sensitive to $\Gamma=1.10$. Frozen three-rater open-generation evaluation supports factual correction in DeepSeek but not Qwen; the automatic judge fails calibration (macro-F1 $.562$), so null-wide semantic results remain descriptive. SteerCheck makes these conditional and mixed conclusions auditable.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2608.24335 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.24335v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.24335 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
E3_RATER_ID_CORRECTION_NOTE.md
e3_human_audit.py
v10_e3_human_audit.json
v10_e3_human_consensus.csv
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 319 words
Related coverage
Construct validity of Claude Opus 4.8's System Card – A commentary
LessWrong · Jun 12, 2026

Delegated authority, running locally: Give an agent on your machine an identity you can trust
1Password · Jul 21, 2026

Vertical Advantage: Transforming Industries with Lakebase and Agentic AI
Databricks · Aug 27, 2026
Value Leakage: An LLM’s Answers Are Silently Shaped by Its Own Values
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 31, 2026