Trafy
Research

MANCE: Manifold Aware Concept Erasure

Concept erasure aims to remove a target concept from a representation while preserving the other information encoded in it. This is difficult because represe...

Matan Avitan·Jul 4, 2026·2 min read·Original source ↗
MANCE: Manifold Aware Concept Erasure

MANCE: Manifold Aware Concept Erasure2607.03973AuthorsMatan Avitan,Yoav Goldberg,Yanai ElazarAbstractConcept erasure aims to remove a target concept from a representation while preserving the other information encoded in it. This is difficult because representations encode many concepts that are often correlated with the erasure target, so removing the target risks damaging them. We propose the Manifold Constraint Hypothesis (MCH): if natural representations concentrate on a structured, lower-dimensional manifold, then interventions should be constrained to that manifold and better preserve other information encoded in the representation during interventions. We instantiate MCH in a new concept erasure method: MANifold aware Concept Erasure (MANCE). MANCE performs iterative updates to the representations using signals from a classifier that predicts a target concept. We estimate the manifold using representations obtained from natural inputs, and then we project the concept removal update to the estimated manifold. We perform extensive evaluation on 119 settings spanning text and vision, including 13 language models, three NLP concepts, and 40 CelebA-CLIP attributes. Employing MANCE on top of previous methods shows consistent improved leakage results. We also introduce MANCE+ and MANCE++, which prepend a closed-form erasure algorithm before employing MANCE, achieving better leakage--surgicality tradeoffs relative to matched full-space updates. MANCE++, our best method, achieves state-of-the-art results on nonlinear concept erasure. These results support MCH in the erasure setting: interventions should be constrained to the natural representation manifold.ResourcesView on Hugging FaceRead PDFArXiv

Related

Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference OptimizationResearch

Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference Optimization

Language models increasingly condition their answers on external signals, and a single misleading one can turn a correct answer wrong. The obvious remedy, training models to resist such signals, hides a failure mode: a model that ignores all context looks robust yet is useless when the context is worth trusting. We recast the problem as selective trust and introduce MIST, a human-annotated benchmark that renders each reasoning item under four matched conditions (clean, misleading, correct-context, and irrelevant-context), together with SC2W, a paired metric counting how often a misle

arXiv (cs.AI) · Aug 6, 2026
4 min
Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference OptimizationResearch

Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference Optimization

Language models increasingly condition their answers on external signals, and a single misleading one can turn a correct answer wrong. The obvious remedy, tr...

Papers with Code · Aug 6, 2026
1 min
Tracing the Heart: An Evidence-Linked Pipeline for Heart-Failure Feature EngineeringResearch

Tracing the Heart: An Evidence-Linked Pipeline for Heart-Failure Feature Engineering

Electronic health record (EHR) feature engineering is a major bottleneck in clinical research and AI, accounting for 39-45% of data scientists' workload. This is especially pronounced in heart failure, which affects an estimated 6.7 million U.S. adults and requires integrating fragmented EHR data with disease-specific, guideline-based clinical reasoning. Existing rule-based and large language model (LLM)-based approaches offer only partial automation with limited maintainability and evidence traceability. We developed the Nimblemind Multi-Agent System (nMAS), an evidence-linked, rubr

arXiv (cs.AI) · Aug 6, 2026
4 min