Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Toward Preference-aligned Large Language Models via Residual-based Model Steering

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that preference alignment can be achieved by adding a single residual-stream vector at inference time, with no training and only around 100 preference pairs.

desk verdict A plausible training-free steering method for preference alignment, but the headline numbers come from in-sample grid search and the paper doesn't rule out style-shift confounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.23982 v2 pith:4DNH3RPZ submitted 2025-09-28 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CYcs.LGcs.NE

Lucio La Cava , Andrea Tagarelli This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CYcs.LGcs.NE
keywords residualstreammodelsteeringpreferencealignmentactivationadditiondifference-in-meanstraining-freeGSM8KHumanEval
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that preference alignment can be done without any training by exploiting information already present in the residual stream of an LLM. From roughly one hundred chosen/rejected response pairs, it computes one vector—the difference between the average activations of preferred and non-preferred answers—and adds a scaled version of that vector to the residual stream at one layer during generation. Across several open models, the paper reports consistent gains on math reasoning (GSM8K) and code generation (HumanEval) while general-purpose benchmarks stay nearly unchanged, and it reports higher scores than DPO-aligned models at about a tenth of the compute. The broader claim is that alignment can become a lightweight, plug-and-play operation instead of a persistent fine-tuning step.

What carries the argument

The residual stream activation x_{i,l}(t) is the accumulated hidden state of token i before layer l—embeddings plus all earlier attention and MLP contributions—making it a linear, editable state that feeds the model's predictions. The preference direction is the difference-in-means r_{i,l} = μ(+)-μ(−) computed from averaged chosen and rejected activations from a small preference set. The paper picks the (i,l) whose direction is most aligned with the mean chosen activation, rescales that vector to the norm of the mean chosen activation, and applies activation addition x' = x_{l*}(t) + α r̂ at inference. This single additive intervention is the claimed mechanism for shifting generation toward

What would settle it

Take the same 100 preference pairs, construct a steering vector from chosen and rejected answers after matching them for response length and basic formatting, or from two random halves of the data with no preference labels, and measure GSM8K and HumanEval; if the benchmark gains persist, the residual direction encodes something other than preference content.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

PaLRS is built on the observation that, at a fixed post-instruction token position, residual stream activations of chosen and rejected answers are far apart in Euclidean distance and fairly consistent in direction across examples. The paper distills this difference into a steering direction r_{i,l} = μ(+)-μ(−), selects the layer and token position whose direction is most aligned with the mean chosen activation, rescales it, and applies x' = x_{l*}(t) + α r̂ at inference. Across Llama-3.2 1B/3B, Llama-3.1 8B, Mistral-7B, and OLMo-2 7B, PaLRS improves GSM8K by about 14% and HumanEval by about 22% over baseline, with guardrail changes mostly within a percentage point or two; against DPO-aligned

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the averaged chosen-minus-rejected activation difference captures the content that makes an answer preferred, rather than surface correlates such as length, verbosity, or formatting that also differ between chosen and rejected responses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Preference alignment no longer requires a training run or a persistent checkpoint: one vector per task, learned from about 100 pairs, can be applied and discarded at inference time.
  • Because the vector is applied at one layer across token positions, the same base model can be steered toward different preferences by swapping vectors.
  • The reported recipe transfers across model families and sizes, with larger relative gains on smaller models and stable guardrail performance on larger ones.
  • PaLRS alignment takes seconds rather than minutes and, in the reported comparisons, scores higher than DPO-aligned models on both GSM8K and HumanEval.
  • The steering coefficient α must stay moderate, typically 0.2–0.8; at 1.0 the method oversteers and performance drops.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Testable extension: building a direction from length- or format-matched chosen–rejected pairs, or from a random split of the data with no preference labels, would separate content alignment from style shifts.
  • The dot-product selection criterion suggests a natural extension to multi-preference composition: adding several domain vectors with independent coefficients could let a user dial math, coding, and safety behavior separately.
  • Because the vector is extracted at a fixed post-instruction position, the approach may transfer to other preference-labeled domains such as summarization or instruction following, with the caveat that the right token position may need to be re-selected.
  • If the residual difference turns out to be mostly surface style, the same method could still be useful as a cheap style controller; that boundary is worth mapping explicitly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PaLRS, a training-free method that extracts a residual-stream steering vector as the difference-in-means of activations from a small set (100) of chosen/rejected response pairs, rescales it, and adds it at a selected layer and token position at inference time to shift an LLM toward preferred behavior. The method is evaluated on five small-to-medium open-weight instruct models, with GSM8K and HumanEval as target tasks and ARC-C, HellaSwag, MMLU, TruthfulQA, and WinoGrande as guardrail tasks. The paper reports consistent target-task gains, modest guardrail movement, and superior effectiveness/efficiency relative to DPO-aligned models trained on the same 100-pair data. The central mechanistic claim is that the difference-in-means direction r_{i,l} linearly encodes preference-relevant content and that adding alpha * rhat at one layer steers the model toward that preference.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the contribution is valuable: an extremely cheap, training-free, plug-and-play preference-alignment mechanism that is competitive with or better than DPO on math and code benchmarks, while avoiding persistent task-specific checkpoints. The paper builds on a credible line of work on linear representational steering (Arditi et al., Zou et al., Rimsky et al.) and extends it to general preference alignment with very few pairs. The multi-model evaluation, guardrail battery, and qualitative examples are useful. However, the evidence as currently presented does not establish that the gains are due to preference content rather than surface/style confounds, and the headline numbers are obtained with per-model/task grid-selected hyperparameters chosen on the target benchmarks themselves.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 (E1) and Table 4] The headline results in Table 2 are in-sample model selections, not held-out predictions. Table 4 reports the grid-search-best seed, token position i, layer l*/L, and steering coefficient alpha for each model and each target task, and Table 2 is explicitly based on those best configurations. Because the same target benchmarks (GSM8K/HumanEval) were used to select these four free parameters, the reported improvements (e.g., +53.3% HumanEval for Mistral) are maxima over the search grid, not unbiased estimates of what PaLRS would achieve with a fixed or principled parameter choice. Section 5's Limitations also concede that discovery of effective data subsets and steering coefficients relies on heuristic grid search. The paper needs a validation split or nested selection procedure: select (seed, i, l*, alpha) on a development set disjoint from the reported test set, or report mean and varian
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (1)-(2), and Section 2.4, Eq. (5)] The load-bearing premise is that r_{i,l} = mu(+)_i,l - mu(-)_i,l captures preference content. The paper does not rule out the obvious confound that chosen and rejected responses differ systematically in length, verbosity, formatting, and token identity. Since the direction is extracted from full response sequences and then added to residual activations at all token positions of the new generated response, rhat could act as a generic 'write more like the chosen responses' style shift. The reported pattern — large gains on math/code, small guardrail changes — is exactly what such a style shift would produce (longer reasoning chains, more complete code). No random-direction control, no length-matched control, and no label-permutation or causal test is provided. The paper should add at least: (a) a random-direction baseline matched in norm and applied at the same layer/token position; (b) a
  3. [Section 3 (E3) and Appendix D] The comparison with DPO is under-specified and potentially unfair. DPO is trained on only 100 preference pairs with a single hyperparameter set (Appendix D), while PaLRS enjoys per-model/task grid-searched alpha, layer, token position, and seed. DPO is known to be sensitive to learning rate and data size; no DPO tuning or multiple-seed reporting is given. The claim that 'PaLRS-aligned models always outperform DPO-aligned' therefore conflates the method with the benefit of extensive hyperparameter search. Please report DPO results from a comparable search budget (e.g., same number of configurations per model), or clearly state that the DPO numbers are a single untuned baseline. Also, the efficiency claim should specify whether the reported time for PaLRS includes the one-time activation-extraction cost and the inference-time steering overhead, or only the training/steering-vector computat
  4. [Section 2.3, Eq. (3), and Table 4] The selection criterion in Eq. (3) — maximizing |r_{i,l} dot mu(+)_l| — is computed on the same 100-sample D used to define both r_{i,l} and mu(+)_l, so the selected direction may overfit to that small sample. More importantly, the paper does not report any variance across the random seed used to sample the 100 triplets. Table 4's seeds differ per model/task, and the reader cannot tell whether the reported gains are stable or whether the seed is another in-sample free parameter. Please report means and standard deviations or interquartile ranges over at least 5-10 seeds, with hyperparameters fixed by a pre-registered rule, for at least one representative model per family.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.4] Typo: 'prefernce direction' should be 'preference direction'.
  2. [Appendix E] The captions of Figures 6 and 7 say 'mathematical improvement' but the examples are code generation; the captions should say 'code improvement' or 'PALRS Code'.
  3. [Section 3 / Table 2] The table would be easier to read if the guardrail-task columns were separated from target-task columns, and if the percentage changes were annotated with confidence intervals or at least the number of samples in TinyBenchmarks for each task.
  4. [Section 1 / Related Work] The phrase 'to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study...' is a strong claim. Given the closely related representation-engineering work by Liu et al. (2024) discussed in Section 4, please soften or justify the novelty claim more precisely (e.g., first to use pure inference-time residual steering without any training for preference alignment).
  5. [Abstract / Section 3] The abstract says 'SimPO' in one sentence ('DPO and SimPO') while the rest of the paper only compares against DPO. Either add SimPO results or remove the mention.
  6. [Reproducibility Statement] The statement says code will be released upon acceptance; for a methods paper whose entire contribution is an algorithm, releasing code as part of the submission or as an anonymized artifact would substantially strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Benchmark gains are partly fitted: seed, layer, token position, and α are grid-searched on the target benchmarks; the diff-in-means preference vector itself is independently derived.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (Table 2 note) and Appendix C (Table 4 caption); Section 5 (Limitations)]
    "Table 4 reports the best model configurations used to obtain ˆr∗, and the corresponding steering coefficient α, used for the results shown throughout the main paper. ... Table 2 reports the results corresponding to the best model configurations for steering direction extraction, as reported in Table 4 in Appendix C. ... our current method for discovering effective data subsets and steering coefficients relies on heuristic grid search."

    The reported benchmark gains are not blind predictions: the random seed, token position i, layer ℓ∗, and steering strength α are chosen by grid search on GSM8K/HumanEval themselves, and Table 2 reports results only for those best configurations. Consequently the 'consistent gains' are the maximum over a searched hyperparameter grid, so the evaluation expresses the selection criterion rather than an out-of-sample test of the method. The paper's own Limitations section concedes the grid-search dependence. Because the fitted hyperparameters directly determine the headline improvements, the claim that PALRS 'achieves consistent gains' is partly a restatement of the fitting procedure; the underlying preference-direction extraction (Eqs. 1-2) remains independent, so circularity is partial.

full rationale

PALRS's core derivation is not definitionally circular: the steering vector is computed from 100 chosen/rejected pairs via difference-in-means (Eqs. 1-2) and applied by activation addition (Eq. 5), with no identity between the input preference pairs and the output benchmark scores. No load-bearing self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling via citation was found (citations of Arditi et al., Wang et al., Belrose, and Rimsky et al. are external prior work with independent content). The central circularity concern is the evaluation protocol: Table 4 explicitly labels the seed, token position, layer, and α as '(Grid-search based) Best', and Section 3 reports results only for those best configurations, so the headline gains are fitted to the target benchmarks. The paper's Limitations section admits this, and per the review rules we weigh that admission explicitly. The potential length/format confound in r̂* is a validity threat, not a definitional circularity, and is not counted here. Overall: one partial fitted-input-called-prediction issue, with the core method still independently grounded, giving a score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's central claim rests on the assumption that residual-stream differences between chosen and rejected responses encode preference-specific signal; on the sufficiency of 100 pairs; on activation addition as a behavior control; and on TinyBenchmarks as faithful proxies. The five numeric quantities in Table 4 (seed, token position, layer, alpha, plus sample composition) are selected on the target benchmarks and are therefore free parameters of the reported results. No new ontological entities are introduced; r* is a mean-difference vector estimated from preference triplets.

free parameters (4)
  • steering coefficient alpha = 0.2 to 0.8 per model/task (Table 4)
    Chosen by grid search over the target benchmark; directly controls the strength of r* addition in Eq. (5), so the reported results are conditional on this fitted value.
  • layer index l* = e.g., 14/16, 23/28, 28/32, 24/32, 26/32 per model/task (Table 4)
    Selected per model and task among [0.3L, 0.9L]; part of the post-hoc configuration used to report the main results.
  • token position i = -1 to -5 depending on model/task (Table 4)
    The selection criterion in Eq. (3) picks one position; the final position is chosen by grid search on the target benchmarks.
  • sampling seed = seeds 870, 921, 245, 790, 311 (math); 343, 689, 94, 237, 447 (code) (Table 4)
    The 100 preference triplets are a random sample; the seed is tuned as part of the best configuration, so the data sample is also a selected variable.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Residual stream activations linearly encode preference-relevant features.
    Stated as hypothesis in Section 1 and used throughout; supported only indirectly by Figure 1, not by a causal control.
  • domain assumption Chosen-rejected activation differences at post-instruction token positions reflect preference content rather than length or style artifacts.
    Underlies Eq. (2); no length control, format control, or random-direction baseline is provided.
  • domain assumption Activation addition at one layer (Eq. (5)) shifts the output distribution toward chosen behavior without disrupting other capabilities.
    Standard steering assumption from prior work (Zou et al., Arditi et al.); the paper relies on it rather than deriving it.
  • domain assumption TinyBenchmarks subsets are faithful proxies for full GSM8K, HumanEval, MMLU, and the other benchmarks.
    Cites Polo et al. (2024); results are reported on tiny subsets, so benchmark-level conclusions depend on this.
  • domain assumption 100 preference pairs suffice for stable difference-in-means estimates.
    Asserted in Section 2.5 with reference to prior refusal and persona steering; not quantified with a variance analysis here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward Preference-aligned Large Language Models via Residual-based Model Steering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4DNH3RPZ

@misc{pith2026250923982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward Preference-aligned Large Language Models via Residual-based Model Steering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4DNH3RPZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.23982}
}
read the original abstract

Preference alignment is a critical step in making Large Language Models (LLMs) useful and aligned with (human) preferences. Existing approaches such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback or Direct Preference Optimization typically require curated data and expensive optimization over billions of parameters, and eventually lead to persistent task-specific models. In this work, we introduce Preference alignment of Large Language Models via Residual Steering (PaLRS), a training-free method that exploits preference signals encoded in the residual streams of LLMs. From as few as one hundred preference pairs, PaLRS extracts lightweight, plug-and-play steering vectors that can be applied at inference time to push models toward preferred behaviors. We evaluate PaLRS on various small-to-medium-scale open-source LLMs, showing that PaLRS-aligned models achieve consistent gains on mathematical reasoning and code generation benchmarks while preserving baseline general-purpose performance. Moreover, when compared to models aligned with DPO and SimPO, they perform better with great time-savings. Our findings highlight that PaLRS offers an effective, much more efficient and flexible alternative to standard preference optimization pipelines, offering a training-free, plug-and-play mechanism for alignment with minimal data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.23982 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Euclidean distance and cosine angle between residual stream activations (from Llama 3.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Benchmark performance and efficiency comparison of PALRS- and DPO-aligned models: GSM8K (left) and HumanEval (right). Colored points denote models, star resp. circle markers denote PALRS- resp DPO-alignment. one’s 300s, i.e., ∼ 10x faster. It is also worth emphasizing that, as models grow larger, DPO-aligned models’ times increase steeply, while PALRSMath-aligned models scale much more smoothly (from 5s to about 25s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance of PALRS-aligned models on the target tasks GSM8K (top) and HumanEval (bottom) by varying the steering coefficient. Dashed horizontal line marks the baseline performance. detoxification (Turner et al., 2023), enhancing truthfulness (Li et al., 2023), erasing concepts (Bel￾rose et al., 2023), targeting refusal behaviors (Arditi et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2025a), and controlling character traits in LLMs Ch… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of mathematical improvement via PA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of mathematical improvement via PA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of mathematical improvement via PA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of mathematical improvement via PA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Convex Optimization for Alignment and Preference Learning on a Single GPU

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    COALA applies convex optimization reformulations of neural networks to direct preference optimization, claiming single-GPU training with ~18% of DPO's TFLOPs and competitive performance on multiple datasets and models...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 14 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Refusal in language models is mediated by a single direction

    Andy Arditi, Oscar Obeso, Aaquib Syed, Daniel Paleka, Nina Panickssery, Wes Gurnee, and Neel Nanda. Refusal in language models is mediated by a single direction. In Proc. Annual Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback

    Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, and et al. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. CoRR , abs/2204.05862, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Steering large language model activations in sparse spaces

    Reza Bayat, Ali Rahimi-Kalahroudi, Mohammad Pezeshki, Sarath Chandar, and Pascal Vincent. Steering large language model activations in sparse spaces. In Conference on Language Modeling , 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    LEACE: perfect linear concept erasure in closed form

    Nora Belrose, David Schneider - Joseph, Shauli Ravfogel, Ryan Cotterell, Edward Raff, and Stella Biderman. LEACE: perfect linear concept erasure in closed form. In Proc. Annual Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Diff-in-means concept editing is worst-case optimal: Explaining a result by Sam Marks and Max Tegmark , 2023

    Nora Belrose. Diff-in-means concept editing is worst-case optimal: Explaining a result by Sam Marks and Max Tegmark , 2023. https://blog.eleuther.ai/diff-in-means/

    2023

  6. [6]

    Think you have solved direct-answer question answering? try arc-da, the direct-answer AI2 reasoning challenge

    Sumithra Bhakthavatsalam, Daniel Khashabi, Tushar Khot, and et al. Think you have solved direct-answer question answering? try arc-da, the direct-answer AI2 reasoning challenge. CoRR , abs/2102.03315, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Discovering latent knowledge in language models without supervision

    Collin Burns, Haotian Ye, Dan Klein, and Jacob Steinhardt. Discovering latent knowledge in language models without supervision. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Learning Representations , 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Personalized steering of large language models: Versatile steering vectors through bi-directional preference optimization

    Yuanpu Cao, Tianrong Zhang, Bochuan Cao, and et al. Personalized steering of large language models: Versatile steering vectors through bi-directional preference optimization. In Proc. Annual Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024

    2024

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Evaluating large language models trained on code

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, and et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code. CoRR , abs/2107.03374, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Parallel structures in pre-training data yield in-context learning

    Yanda Chen, Chen Zhao, Zhou Yu, Kathleen McKeown, and He He. Parallel structures in pre-training data yield in-context learning. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 8582--8592, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Persona vectors: Monitoring and controlling character traits in language models

    Runjin Chen, Andy Arditi, Henry Sleight, Owain Evans, and Jack Lindsey. Persona vectors: Monitoring and controlling character traits in language models. CoRR , abs/2507.21509, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, and et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. CoRR , abs/2110.14168, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    The Llama 3 Herd of Models

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, and et al. The Llama 3 Herd of Models . CoRR , abs/2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Toy models of superposition

    Nelson Elhage, Tristan Hume, Catherine Olsson, and et al. Toy models of superposition. CoRR , abs/2209.10652, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    The language model evaluation harness, 2024

    Leo Gao and et al. The language model evaluation harness, 2024. https://zenodo.org/records/12608602

    2024

  8. [16]

    Measuring massive multitask language understanding

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, and et al. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Learning Representations , 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    The low-dimensional linear geometry of contextualized word representations

    Evan Hernandez and Jacob Andreas. The low-dimensional linear geometry of contextualized word representations. In Proc. Conf. on Computational Natural Language Learning , pages 82--93, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    ORPO : Monolithic preference optimization without reference model

    Jiwoo Hong, Noah Lee, and James Thorne. ORPO : Monolithic preference optimization without reference model. In Proc. Conf. on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Sparse autoencoders find highly interpretable features in language models

    Robert Huben, Hoagy Cunningham, Logan Riggs Smith, Aidan Ewart, and Lee Sharkey. Sparse autoencoders find highly interpretable features in language models. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Learning Representations , 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, and et al

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, and et al. Mistral 7b. CoRR , abs/2310.06825, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    LMD 3: Language model data density dependence

    John Kirchenbauer, Garrett Honke, Gowthami Somepalli, Jonas Geiping, Katherine Lee, Daphne Ippolito, Tom Goldstein, and David Andre. LMD 3: Language model data density dependence. In Conference on Language Modeling , 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    o pf, Yannic Kilcher, Dimitri von R \

    Andreas K \" o pf, Yannic Kilcher, Dimitri von R \" u tte, and et al. Openassistant conversations - democratizing large language model alignment. In Proc. Annual Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Quantifying feature space universality across large language models via sparse autoencoders

    Michael Lan, Philip Torr, Austin Meek, Ashkan Khakzar, David Krueger, and Fazl Barez. Quantifying feature space universality across large language models via sparse autoencoders. CoRR , abs/2410.06981, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Li, Maxwell Nye, and Jacob Andreas

    Belinda Z. Li, Maxwell Nye, and Jacob Andreas. Implicit representations of meaning in neural language models. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 1813--1827, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Vi \' e gas, and et al

    Kenneth Li, Oam Patel, Fernanda B. Vi \' e gas, and et al. Inference-time intervention: Eliciting truthful answers from a language model. In Proc. Annual Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Fundamental capabilities and applications of large language models: A survey

    Jiawei Li, Yang Gao, Yizhe Yang, and et al. Fundamental capabilities and applications of large language models: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. , 58(2), 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    T ruthful QA : Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods

    Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. T ruthful QA : Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 3214--3252, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Aligning large language models with human preferences through representation engineering

    Wenhao Liu, Xiaohua Wang, Muling Wu, and et al. Aligning large language models with human preferences through representation engineering. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 10619--10638, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward

    Yu Meng, Mengzhou Xia, and Danqi Chen. SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward . In Proc. Annual Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Emergent linear representations in world models of self-supervised sequence models

    Neel Nanda, Andrew Lee, and Martin Wattenberg. Emergent linear representations in world models of self-supervised sequence models. In Proc. BlackboxNLP Workshop , pages 16--30, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    2 OLMo 2 Furious

    Team OLMo, Pete Walsh, Luca Soldaini, and et al. 2 OLMo 2 Furious . CoRR , abs/2501.00656, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, and et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Proc. Annual Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    The linear representation hypothesis and the geometry of large language models

    Kiho Park, Yo Joong Choe, and Victor Veitch. The linear representation hypothesis and the geometry of large language models. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Machine Learning , 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examples

    Felipe Maia Polo, Lucas Weber, Leshem Choshen, and et al. tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examples . In Proc. Int. Conf. on Machine Learning , 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In Proc. Annual Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Steering llama 2 via contrastive activation addition

    Nina Rimsky, Nick Gabrieli, Julian Schulz, and et al. Steering llama 2 via contrastive activation addition. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 15504--15522, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale

    Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale. In Proc. AAAI Conf. , pages 8732--8740, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Detection and measurement of syntactic templates in generated text

    Chantal Shaib, Yanai Elazar, Junyi Jessy Li, and Byron C Wallace. Detection and measurement of syntactic templates in generated text. In Proc. Conf. on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 6416--6431, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Large language model alignment: A survey

    Tianhao Shen, Renren Jin, Yufei Huang, and et al. Large language model alignment: A survey. CoRR , abs/2309.15025, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A survey on sparse autoencoders: Interpreting the internal mechanisms of large language models

    Dong Shu, Xuansheng Wu, Haiyan Zhao, Daking Rai, Ziyu Yao, Ninghao Liu, and Mengnan Du. A survey on sparse autoencoders: Interpreting the internal mechanisms of large language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025 , pages 1690--1712, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Learning to summarize with human feedback

    Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, and et al. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:3008--3021, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Hollinsworth, Atticus Geiger, and Neel Nanda

    Curt Tigges, Oskar J. Hollinsworth, Atticus Geiger, and Neel Nanda. Language models linearly represent sentiment. In Proc. BlackboxNLP Workshop , pages 58--87, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Steering language models with activation engineering

    Alexander Matt Turner, Lisa Thiergart, Gavin Leech, and et al. Steering language models with activation engineering. CoRR , abs/2308.10248, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Aligning large language models with human: A survey

    Yufei Wang, Wanjun Zhong, Liangyou Li, and et al. Aligning large language models with human: A survey. CoRR , abs/2307.12966, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Beyond prompt engineering: Robust behavior control in LLM s via steering target atoms

    Mengru Wang, Ziwen Xu, Shengyu Mao, Shumin Deng, Zhaopeng Tu, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. Beyond prompt engineering: Robust behavior control in LLM s via steering target atoms. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 23381--23399, 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    Surgical, cheap, and flexible: Mitigating false refusal in language models via single vector ablation

    Xinpeng Wang, Chengzhi Hu, Paul R \" o ttger, and Barbara Plank. Surgical, cheap, and flexible: Mitigating false refusal in language models via single vector ablation. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Learning Representations , 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    Generalization v.s

    Xinyi Wang, Antonis Antoniades, Yanai Elazar, and et al. Generalization v.s. memorization: Tracing language models' capabilities back to pretraining data. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Learning Representations , 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    H ella S wag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Proc

    Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. H ella S wag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 4791--4800, July 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Towards best practices of activation patching in language models: Metrics and methods

    Fred Zhang and Neel Nanda. Towards best practices of activation patching in language models: Metrics and methods. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Learning Representations , 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Representation engineering: A top-down approach to AI transparency

    Andy Zou, Long Phan, Sarah Li Chen, and et al. Representation engineering: A top-down approach to AI transparency. CoRR , abs/2310.01405, 2023

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.