pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.06902 · v1 · pith:VZMYBS7Bnew · submitted 2026-06-05 · 💻 cs.LG

TALAN: Task-Aligned Latent Adaptation Networks for Targeted Post-Training of Large Language Models

Chengkai Zhang , Ziteng Liu , Junpu Wang , Zeyi Tao , Yang Wang , Sagar Chordia , Qin Huang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 22:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG
keywords large language modelslow-rank adaptationpost-traininglatent adaptationactivation interventionSTEM benchmarkscode generationresidual stream
0
0 comments X

The pith

TALAN inserts a co-trained latent side path that raises LoRA and DoRA performance on math and code by 1.4-1.85 points on average.

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

The paper presents TALAN as a sequence-conditioned latent side path that is inserted into a transformer's residual stream and trained jointly with a low-rank adapter in a single supervised fine-tuning pass. The path compresses the current sequence into a compact memory, remixes that memory into token-level perturbations, and adds them back through a controlled residual connection. The design is controlled by six configuration axes and is tested on four Qwen3 backbones across four STEM and code benchmarks. If the observed gains hold, the method supplies an input-aware activation intervention that complements existing adapter techniques while adding less than one percent extra trainable parameters and almost no inference cost.

Core claim

TALAN yields a +1.41 point cross-model mean gain with LoRA and +1.85 with DoRA; the gains are positive on all four backbones and non-negative on all sixteen model-benchmark cells under LoRA. Internal measurements show the TALAN perturbation is 80-1,700 times smaller than the matched adapter update yet nearly orthogonal to it in direction, and the perturbation propagates and amplifies through network depth. The same pattern appears in a Llama-3.2-1B transfer probe under two adapter variants.

What carries the argument

Sequence-conditioned latent side path that compresses the active sequence into latent memory, remixes it into token-level perturbations, and applies them via controlled residual update while co-trained with a low-rank adapter.

If this is right

  • The adapter update and the TALAN perturbation remain nearly orthogonal in direction even though the adapter update is orders of magnitude larger.
  • The small TALAN perturbation still propagates and amplifies through successive layers.
  • The improvement pattern transfers at least to a Llama-3.2-1B model under both LoRA and rsLoRA.
  • Inference overhead stays between 1.01x and 1.02x relative to the matched adapter baseline.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same latent-side-path construction could be attached to other adapter families or to full-parameter fine-tuning without changing the core training loop.
  • Because the perturbation remains small and orthogonal, TALAN may serve as a diagnostic tool for measuring how activation-level changes interact with weight-level updates.
  • The six-axis configuration space offers a controlled testbed for studying which insertion points and write-back rules most affect downstream reasoning tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The measured gains are produced by the TALAN mechanism itself rather than by chance variation across training seeds or by the particular choices among the six configuration axes.

What would settle it

A set of twenty or more paired training runs across the same backbones and benchmarks in which the average TALAN advantage falls to zero or reverses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.06902 by Chengkai Zhang, Junpu Wang, Qin Huang, Sagar Chordia, Yang Wang, Zeyi Tao, Ziteng Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: TALAN architecture overview. The block summarizes the active sequence into a compact latent memory Z (Stage 1, summarize), remixes that memory into token-level perturbation H via one of four mixers (Stage 2, remix), and writes perturbation back through either direct merge or a learned gate (Stage 3, writeback). TALAN is trained jointly with a low-rank adapter under the standard autoregressive objective. Co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: TALAN configuration axes. Six constrained axes compose into one configuration π = (ℓ ⋆ , T, m, w, τ, γ). Per-backbone selection chooses π inside this family; it does not change the training objective, data, or low-rank adapter recipe. • Latent-memory attention (multihead_local): H = MHA(X, Z, Z), so tokens read from the latent memory through multi-head attention. • Cross-attention (cross_attn): H = MHAcros… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Per-layer activation divergence on GPQA DIAMOND. Each point is one example; the vertical axis is relative activation difference between TALAN+LoRA and matched LoRA. The selected insertion layer and later-layer amplification are visible across backbones. The insertion layers differ across hosts—Q8B at layer 4, Q32B at layer 12, and DS32B and MoE at the embedding layer—but the lift-off point in the activatio… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Architecture-audit view of the TALAN family. (A) Per-backbone G1 rate; the dashed line marks the overall 7.1% rate. (B) On Q32B, the four mixers form a structured frontier in best-average￾delta vs. G1 rate. (C) Low slot counts dominate the high-value region (T = 2 reaches the largest best-avg delta, with monotone decay through T = 6–8). (D) Champions occupy host-dependent geometries in (connection depth × … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qwen3-8B per-layer relative-L2 divergence, four benchmarks (GPQA DIAMOND, GSM8K, MATH-500, MBPP). Each point is one example; vertical axis is the rel_diff between TALAN+LoRA and the matched LoRA baseline at that layer. Insertion locus: layer 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B per-layer relative-L2 divergence, four benchmarks. Insertion locus: embedding (layer 0). G.4 Per-layer observations Three observations are consistent across all 16 (backbone × benchmark) plots: 1. Insertion-layer step. The TALAN module’s insertion locus is visible as the layer at which the rel_diff curve first lifts off zero. For Q32B the lift is at layer 12, for Q8B at layer 4… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qwen3-32B per-layer relative-L2 divergence, four benchmarks. Insertion locus: layer 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qwen3-30B-A3B (MoE) per-layer relative-L2 divergence, four benchmarks. Insertion locus: embedding (layer 0). would be expected to produce prompt-distribution-dependent divergence shapes, whereas the observed stability suggests a structural intervention whose propagation is governed by the host network’s layer-wise geometry rather than by the input. H Weight-Level Interpretability (Full) This appendix provi… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qwen3-8B per-layer cosine similarity between TALAN+LoRA and matched LoRA activations, four benchmarks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B per-layer cosine similarity, four benchmarks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qwen3-32B per-layer cosine similarity, four benchmarks. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Qwen3-30B-A3B (MoE) per-layer cosine similarity, four benchmarks. We find that the random structural tensors (theme queries, in_proj weights, out_proj weights, theme projections) stay close to fresh-sample distance on every champion. For the three trained dense champions, the trainable signal lives in the deterministic integration.gate_vector and the MHA biases. The MoE operating point is forward-active b… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distance-to-champion correlation audit. The original 13-dimensional champion signature and the later 29-dimensional augmented signature tell the same negative story: only Q32B/multihead_local exhibits a moderate negative distance-vs-∆ correlation, and the augmented feature set weakens rather than improves that signal. The main paper therefore does not rely on a universal champion-distance score. H.4 Ensem… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Ensemble-component audit over 82 checkpoints. (A) Cross-component top-1 Q singular￾direction cosine remains centered near zero for both winner-side and other checkpoints, indicating that ensemble components behave like ordinary near-orthogonal random draws. (B) Mixture imbalance is driven more by backbone defaults than by outcome class. This supports the reading that any ensemble benefit lives in activati… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Single-stage TALAN vs. multi-stage AdapterFusion workflow. TALAN: shared training data → one SFT stage with joint LoRA + TALAN training → active TALAN path. AdapterFusion: shared training data → per-domain adapter trainings → separate fusion stage → fused adapter path. TALAN’s single-stage path keeps one active adaptation path and one inference pass. L Selected Non-Qwen Paired Transfer Check The primary e… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Targeted post-training aims to improve reasoning, math, and code without degrading strengths. Low-rank adapters are efficient but task-global; activation interventions are input-aware but often require separate probes, vectors, or inference-time steering. We introduce TALAN (Task-Aligned Latent Adaptation Networks), a sequence-conditioned latent side path inserted into a transformer's residual stream and co-trained with a low-rank adapter in one SFT loop. TALAN compresses the active sequence into latent memory, remixes it into token-level perturbations, and writes them back through a controlled residual update. It is configured along six axes: insertion location, memory size, mixer, writeback rule, trainability scope, and gradient scale. Across four Qwen3-family backbones and four STEM/code benchmarks, TALAN improves matched LoRA and DoRA baselines. With LoRA, it yields a +1.41 point cross-model mean gain, positive on all four backbones and non-negative on all 16 model-benchmark cells. With DoRA, it yields a +1.85 point mean gain, positive on all backbones and on 13 of 16 cells. Paired seed checks support positive average effects but show nontrivial variance, so we treat them as sensitivity checks. Cost is small: <1% trainable parameters relative to the backbone and 1.01-1.02x inference overhead versus matched LoRA. A Llama-3.2-1B transfer probe is also positive under LoRA and rsLoRA across seven paired seeds, supporting a transfer beyond Qwen. Internal-state analyses suggest TALAN is a small complementary activation intervention. The matched adapter update is 80-1,700x larger than the TALAN perturbation, yet their directions have near-zero cosine; per-layer measurements show this small orthogonal perturbation propagates and amplifies through depth. TALAN offers a practical platform for studying steerable activation-level adaptation within standard adapter-based post-training.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TALAN, a sequence-conditioned latent side path inserted into a transformer's residual stream and co-trained with a low-rank adapter (LoRA or DoRA) in a single SFT loop. It is configured along six axes (insertion location, memory size, mixer, writeback rule, trainability scope, gradient scale) and claims to deliver targeted post-training gains on reasoning/math/code tasks. Across four Qwen3 backbones and four STEM/code benchmarks, TALAN reports a +1.41 mean gain over matched LoRA (positive on all 4 backbones, non-negative on all 16 cells) and +1.85 over DoRA (positive on all backbones, non-negative on 13/16 cells), with <1% extra parameters and 1.01-1.02x inference cost. Internal analyses indicate the TALAN perturbation is small, orthogonal to the adapter update (near-zero cosine), yet propagates through depth. A Llama-3.2-1B transfer probe is also reported positive.

Significance. If the reported gains prove robust to seed variance and statistical testing, TALAN would provide a lightweight, co-trainable mechanism for adding input-aware activation-level steering inside standard adapter pipelines, with potential value for studying complementary adaptation directions in post-training.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim of non-negative deltas on all 16 (LoRA) and 13/16 (DoRA) model-benchmark cells is not supported by the provided evidence. The abstract itself states that paired seed checks exhibit nontrivial variance and are treated only as sensitivity checks; no standard deviations, number of seeds per cell, confidence intervals, or statistical tests are reported, so it is impossible to assess whether the mean gains of +1.41 / +1.85 are distinguishable from zero once variance is accounted for.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and experimental protocol: The six configuration axes (insertion location, memory size, mixer, writeback rule, trainability scope, gradient scale) are introduced without an ablation isolating which axes drive the gains versus which are incidental; the reported improvements could therefore be attributable to the particular hyperparameter choices rather than the TALAN mechanism itself.
  3. [Abstract] Internal-state analyses: The claims that the matched adapter update is 80-1,700x larger than the TALAN perturbation yet their directions have near-zero cosine, and that the perturbation propagates and amplifies through depth, lack sufficient methodological detail (e.g., exact layers measured, cosine computation, propagation metric) to evaluate whether the orthogonality is load-bearing for the performance gains.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'positive on all four backbones and non-negative on all 16 model-benchmark cells' for LoRA but does not define the exact benchmarks or models, making it difficult to interpret the scope of the result.
  2. [Abstract] The Llama-3.2-1B transfer probe is mentioned as positive under LoRA and rsLoRA across seven paired seeds, but no quantitative deltas or comparison to the Qwen3 results are supplied.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. We agree that the points raised identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened through additional reporting and experiments. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested changes in the revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim of non-negative deltas on all 16 (LoRA) and 13/16 (DoRA) model-benchmark cells is not supported by the provided evidence. The abstract itself states that paired seed checks exhibit nontrivial variance and are treated only as sensitivity checks; no standard deviations, number of seeds per cell, confidence intervals, or statistical tests are reported, so it is impossible to assess whether the mean gains of +1.41 / +1.85 are distinguishable from zero once variance is accounted for.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract's phrasing of non-negative deltas across all cells relies on observed means without full statistical apparatus. The paired seed checks were explicitly described as sensitivity checks due to the noted variance. In revision we will (i) report the exact number of seeds per cell, (ii) include standard deviations for the reported means where computed, and (iii) rephrase the abstract and results to present the gains as observed average improvements accompanied by the sensitivity analysis rather than as statistically tested effects. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and experimental protocol: The six configuration axes (insertion location, memory size, mixer, writeback rule, trainability scope, gradient scale) are introduced without an ablation isolating which axes drive the gains versus which are incidental; the reported improvements could therefore be attributable to the particular hyperparameter choices rather than the TALAN mechanism itself.

    Authors: The six axes constitute the design space explored during development. The submitted results reflect a single well-performing configuration rather than an exhaustive search. Because full factorial ablations on four backbones would be computationally prohibitive, we omitted them from the initial submission. In the revision we will add a targeted ablation on a smaller backbone (Qwen3-0.5B) that isolates the contribution of the two most salient axes—insertion location and memory size—while holding the remaining axes fixed at the values used in the main experiments. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Internal-state analyses: The claims that the matched adapter update is 80-1,700x larger than the TALAN perturbation yet their directions have near-zero cosine, and that the perturbation propagates and amplifies through depth, lack sufficient methodological detail (e.g., exact layers measured, cosine computation, propagation metric) to evaluate whether the orthogonality is load-bearing for the performance gains.

    Authors: We agree that the internal analyses section lacks the precise implementation details needed for evaluation. In the revised manuscript we will expand the relevant subsection to specify: the exact transformer layers at which measurements were taken, the precise formula and normalization used for the cosine-similarity computation between adapter and TALAN updates, and the definition of the propagation/amplification metric (including how per-layer norms were aggregated across depth). revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical method proposal with direct benchmark comparisons

full rationale

The paper introduces TALAN as a new adapter architecture configured along six explicit axes and evaluates it via standard SFT training and held-out benchmark comparisons against matched LoRA/DoRA baselines. No equations, derivations, or first-principles predictions are present that reduce to fitted parameters or self-definitions. All reported gains (+1.41 / +1.85 mean) are direct empirical deltas; internal-state analyses are post-hoc measurements, not load-bearing for the central claim. Self-citations are absent from the provided text. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 0 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical performance differences whose magnitude depends on the six configuration axes (insertion location, memory size, mixer, writeback rule, trainability scope, gradient scale) treated as design choices, plus the unverified assumption that the reported orthogonality and propagation effects are causal rather than correlational.

free parameters (2)
  • memory size
    Chosen as one of the six configuration axes that define the latent path capacity.
  • gradient scale
    Tuned to control the magnitude of the residual write-back.
invented entities (1)
  • latent memory no independent evidence
    purpose: Compresses the active sequence for later remixing into token-level perturbations.
    New component introduced by the TALAN architecture; no independent evidence supplied beyond the empirical gains.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5915 in / 1448 out tokens · 27838 ms · 2026-06-27T22:16:53.032553+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    DELIFT: Data efficient language model instruction fine-tuning

    Ishika Agarwal, Krishnateja Killamsetty, Lucian Popa, and Marina Danilevsky. DELIFT: Data efficient language model instruction fine-tuning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URLhttps://iclr.cc/virtual/2025/poster/30319

    2025

  2. [2]

    Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, Roman Ring, Eliza Rutherford, Serkan Cabi, Tengda Han, Zhitao Gong, Sina Samangooei, Mariber Monteiro, Jacob Menick, Sebastian Borgeaud, Andrew Brock, Aida Nematzadeh, Sahand Sharifzadeh, Mikolaj Binkows...

    2022

  3. [3]

    Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, and Charles Sutton. Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    DeepSeek-AI. DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501. 12948

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [7]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19847

    arXiv

  7. [8]

    To- wards a unified view of parameter-efficient transfer learning

    Junxian He, Chunting Zhou, Xuezhe Ma, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, and Graham Neubig. To- wards a unified view of parameter-efficient transfer learning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  8. [9]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2021

    2021

  9. [10]

    Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP

    Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin de Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. InProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2019

    2019

  10. [11]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  11. [12]

    Perceiver: General perception with iterative attention

    Andrew Jaegle, Felix Gimeno, Andrew Brock, Oriol Vinyals, Andrew Zisserman, and Joao Carreira. Perceiver: General perception with iterative attention. InProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021

    2021

  12. [13]

    Dawid Jan Kopiczko, Tijmen Blankevoort, and Yuki M. Asano. VeRA: Vector-based random matrix adaptation.International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  13. [14]

    The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning

    Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. InProceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2021

    2021

  14. [15]

    Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation

    Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. InProceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021

    2021

  15. [16]

    Few-shot parameter-efficient fine-tuning is better and cheaper than in-context learning

    Haokun Liu, Derek Tam, Mohammed Muqeeth, Jay Mohta, Tenghao Huang, Mohit Bansal, and Colin Raffel. Few-shot parameter-efficient fine-tuning is better and cheaper than in-context learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

  16. [17]

    DoRA: Weight-decomposed low-rank adaptation

    Shih-Yang Liu, Chien-Yi Wang, Hongxu Yin, Pavlo Molchanov, Yu-Chiang Frank Wang, Kwang-Ting Cheng, and Min-Hung Chen. DoRA: Weight-decomposed low-rank adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09353, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [18]

    AdapterFusion: Non-destructive task composition for transfer learning

    Jonas Pfeiffer, Aishwarya Kamath, Andreas Rücklé, Kyunghyun Cho, and Iryna Gurevych. AdapterFusion: Non-destructive task composition for transfer learning. InProceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021

    2021

  18. [19]

    Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    Qwen Team. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [20]

    GPQA: A graduate-level google-proof Q&A benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12022, 2023

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, Samuel Bowman, and Ethan Perez. GPQA: A graduate-level google-proof Q&A benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12022, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [21]

    Branch-train-MiX: Mixing expert LLMs into a mixture-of-experts LLM.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07816, 2024

    Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Olga Golovneva, Vasu Sharma, Hu Xu, Xi Victoria Lin, Baptiste Roziere, Jacob Kahn, Daniel Li, Wen-tau Yih, Jason Weston, and Xian Li. Branch-train-MiX: Mixing expert LLMs into a mixture-of-experts LLM.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07816, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07816. 12

    arXiv 2024

  21. [22]

    Turner, Lisa Thiergart, Gavin Leech, David Udell, Juan J

    Alexander M. Turner, Lisa Thiergart, Gavin Leech, David Udell, Juan J. Vazquez, Ulisse Mini, and Monte MacDiarmid. Steering language models with activation engineering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10248, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [23]

    C og S teer: Cognition-Inspired Selective Layer Intervention for Efficiently Steering Large Language Models

    Xintong Wang, Jingheng Pan, Liang Ding, Longyue Wang, Longqin Jiang, Xingshan Li, and Chris Biemann. CogSteer: Cognition-inspired selective layer intervention for efficiently steering large language models. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pages 25507–25522, 2025. doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1308. URL https: //...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1308 2025

  23. [25]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.24370

    arXiv

  24. [26]

    Manning, and Christopher Potts

    Zhengxuan Wu, Aryaman Arora, Zheng Wang, Atticus Geiger, Dan Jurafsky, Christopher D. Manning, and Christopher Potts. ReFT: Representation finetuning for language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03592, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  25. [27]

    type": "talan

    Andy Zou, Long Phan, Sarah Chen, James Campbell, Phillip Guo, Richard Ren, Alexander Pan, Xuwang Yin, Mantas Mazeika, Ann-Kathrin Dombrowski, Shashwat Goel, Nathaniel Li, Michael J. Byun, Zifan Wang, Alex Mallen, Steven Basart, Sanmi Koyejo, Dawn Song, Matt Fredrikson, J. Zico Kolter, and Dan Hendrycks. Representation engineering: A top-down approach to A...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [28]

    For Q32B the lift is at layer 12, for Q8B at layer 4, for DS32B and MoE at the embedding (layer 0)

    Insertion-layer step.The TALAN module’s insertion locus is visible as the layer at which the rel_diff curve first lifts off zero. For Q32B the lift is at layer 12, for Q8B at layer 4, for DS32B and MoE at the embedding (layer 0). This confirms that the configured insertion point is the actual source of the divergence

  27. [29]

    Persistence (not absorption).The rel_diff grows monotonically through the network rather than being absorbed or decaying. This is a necessary condition for a small insertion-layer perturbation to affect downstream outputs; it is expected in deep residual networks but not guaranteed—a perturbation orthogonal to the directions that subsequent layers amplify...

  28. [30]

    saved is indistinguishable from a fresh draw

    Cross-benchmark stability (the main finding).The shape of the per-layer divergence curve is essentially identical across the four benchmarks for each backbone. The representation shift TA- LAN induces is a property of the model variant, not of the prompt distribution. This distinguishes the TALAN intervention from prompt-dependent noise: a random or data-...