Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates using Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) to guide model editing for mathematical reasoning in LLMs, finding that projecting task vectors onto SAE feature subspaces severely limits editing efficacy. They demonstrate a geometric misalignment between SAE activation-space directions and weight-space task vectors causes a 97% loss of modification energy. Instead, they propose using SAEs to select layers for injecting unfiltered task vectors, achieving significant accuracy improvements on Number Theory (29.6% to 39.4%) and other math subjects on the Minerva Math benchmark.
SAE-guided model editing fails when treating SAEs as scalpels to filter task vectors, but succeeds when treating them as stethoscopes to select layers for unfiltered task vector injection.
LLMs increasingly require surgical model editing to enhance domain-specific capabilities without incurring the computational cost or catastrophic forgetting associated with full fine-tuning. Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) have emerged as a promising tool in this setting, in principle allowing for feature-level identification of where to intervene. In this work, we rigorously evaluate an SAE-guided editing pipeline for mathematical reasoning on Gemma-3-4B-IT and uncover a fundamental failure mode: the intuitively appealing approach of projecting task vectors onto SAE feature subspaces acts as an information bottleneck that discards approximately 97% of the modification energy, yielding no statistically significant improvements across seven math subjects. We show that this failure stems from a geometric misalignment between activation-space SAE directions and weight-space task vectors. We then propose a shift in perspective: SAE as a Stethoscope, Not a Scalpel, where SAEs are used for layer-level diagnosis rather than intervention-level filtering. By injecting unfiltered raw task vectors only into layers identified by an SAE-derived specificity score, we improve Number Theory accuracy from 29.6% to 39.4% (z=+3.41, p=0.0007) on the Minerva Math benchmark; 5 of 7 math subjects significantly improved and none significantly degraded. Our method is fully deterministic, requires no additional inference cost, and provides a principled framework for interpretability-guided model editing.
