Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Balancing Stylization and Truth via Disentangled Representation Steering

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that StyliTruth, an inference-time representation-editing method, separates style-relevant and truth-relevant subspaces in LLM attention heads so that imposing a style no longer degrades factual correctness.

desk verdict A plausible fix for a real problem, but the evaluation as written fits the truth subspace to the same TruthfulQA questions it scores on, so the headline numbers are not yet evidence of generalized truthfulness preservation. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04530 v2 pith:A3P5D7V2 submitted 2025-08-06 cs.CL

Chenglei Shen , Zhongxiang Sun , Teng Shi , Xiao Zhang , Jun Xu This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords representationeditingstyletransfertruthfulnessattentionheadssubspacedisentanglementinference-timeinterventionlargelanguagemodelsorthogonaldeflation
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 identifies a failure mode it calls stylization-induced truthfulness collapse: when an LLM is edited at inference time to speak in a target style, the injected style signal contaminates attention heads that also carry truthfulness, and answers become factually wrong. It proposes StyliTruth, which probes attention heads for style and truth sensitivity, builds separate subspaces for the two attributes from activation differences, and orthogonalizes the truth subspace against the style subspace so the two edits do not interfere. Editing then applies token-level, adaptive steering strengths within each subspace. Experiments on Shakespeare and Dream of the Red Chamber styles with TruthfulQA report that StyliTruth raises the combined style-truth score over existing inference-time intervention methods. If the claim holds, stylized generation can be made safe without fine-tuning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is orthogonal deflation of activation-difference subspaces. For each selected attention head, StyliTruth computes difference vectors between stylized and ordinary responses and between truthful and untruthful responses, takes the top-K right singular vectors of each matrix to span a style subspace and a truth subspace, and for heads sensitive to both attributes projects the truth difference vectors onto the orthogonal complement of the style subspace before taking their SVD. This yields a truth basis orthogonal to the style basis, so style steering cannot push activations along truth directions. Editing strength is then made adaptive per token and per basis, scaled

What would settle it

Run the identical StyliTruth pipeline but split TruthfulQA into disjoint question sets for building the truth subspace and for evaluation. If the truthfulness improvement over the strongest baseline largely disappears on the held-out questions, the claim that the truth subspace preserves truthfulness is falsified. A second check: measure the cosine similarity between the deflated truth basis and the style basis on held-out styles; if the bases re-entangle, the central orthogonality premise fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

StyliTruth's central claim is that stylization-induced truthfulness collapse is not an unavoidable cost of style editing but a side effect of entangled steering directions in a subset of attention heads. The paper measures mean activation differences for style and for truth across heads, and finds that in heads selected as sensitive to both attributes the two directions have statistically significant cosine similarity, while in other heads they are nearly orthogonal. The method constructs style and truth subspaces by SVD of these activation differences, then, for entangled heads, projects the truth differences onto the orthogonal complement of the style subspace before building the truth bas

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the truth-relevant subspace extracted from TruthfulQA question-answer pairs captures truthfulness in general, even though the method is both trained and evaluated on that same benchmark, so the reported truthfulness gains may reflect fitting the test set rather than preserving truth on unseen questions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, style and truth become separately controllable attributes: a style edit can be added or removed without perturbing factual behavior.
  • Because the method is training-free and operates at inference time, it can be applied to a deployed LLM without fine-tuning.
  • The localized head-selection step implies that only a small set of attention heads needs to be edited, keeping the intervention targeted and computationally cheap.
  • The same recipe is reported to work for an English style and a Chinese style, suggesting the mechanism is not tied to one register or language.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would treat the truthfulness gains as provisional until the truth subspace is built on one set of questions and evaluated on a disjoint set; the paper constructs and tests on the same TruthfulQA corpus, which could let the steering vectors memorize answer patterns rather than general truthfulness.
  • The entangled-heads-then-orthogonal-deflation recipe is a natural candidate for other paired interventions, such as factual accuracy with persona or safety with creativity, whenever two attributes share attention heads.
  • The paper's information-loss bound, roughly K/d under an incoherence assumption, predicts that raising K will eventually erase truth signal; a direct test would be to vary K and watch the truthfulness metric fall on held-out questions before style fidelity degrades.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper identifies “stylization-induced truthfulness collapse” in representation-editing methods for LLM stylization and proposes StyliTruth, a training-free inference-time intervention. StyliTruth selects style- and truth-relevant attention heads via linear probing, constructs separate style and truth subspaces with SVD, applies an orthogonal-deflation step for heads where the two subspaces are entangled, and then performs adaptive token-level steering along each subspace. The method is evaluated on Shakespeare-style English and Dream of the Red Chamber-style Chinese generation, with truthfulness measured on TruthfulQA and TruthfulQA(ZH). The central claim is that StyliTruth “significantly reduces stylization-induced truthfulness collapse and outperforms existing inference-time intervention methods in balancing style adherence with truthfulness,” supported by Table 1’s S-TI improvements over the strongest baseline (30.65% for DRC, 10.83% for Shakespeare).

Significance. If the result holds, StyliTruth would be a practically useful contribution: it directly addresses a known failure mode of lightweight style steering and provides a concrete disentanglement procedure. The paper also includes a useful analysis of style–truth entanglement across attention heads, an ablation of the two main components, and sensitivity analyses. Credit is due for open-sourcing the code and for the analytic decomposition of the information-loss bound in Section 5. However, the central empirical claim is currently undermined by a circular evaluation setup: the truth subspace is estimated from the same TruthfulQA benchmark on which truthfulness is then scored, with no held-out split described. This makes the reported truthfulness gains uninterpretable as evidence of generalizable preservation of truthfulness.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, §6.1, §8.1] Circular evaluation: the truth-relevant subspace D_t is constructed from TruthfulQA question–answer pairs (§4.1, §8.1), and final Truth, Info, and TI are computed on the same benchmark (§6.1). The only split mentioned is the 4:1 probe-validation split in §4.2, which does not prevent the SVD basis and steering vectors from being fitted to the very questions used for scoring. Since §8.1 reorganizes TruthfulQA into 2,312 pairs, even a pair-level split would not guarantee that a question used in construction does not appear in evaluation through a different answer variant. The reported TI gains (e.g., 0.5000 vs. 0.3056 for DRC) may therefore reflect benchmark-specific answer patterns rather than improved truthfulness. The authors should evaluate on a held-out split of TruthfulQA (by unique question) or on an independent factual QA benchmark, and report the exact split procedure.
  2. [§8.1 vs. Table 1] The evaluation sample size is inconsistent and unexplained. §8.1 reports that TruthfulQA is reorganized into 2,312 question–answer pairs, but the TI values in Table 1 are multiples of 1/72 (e.g., 0.4167, 0.5000, 0.3056), strongly suggesting that only 72 items were scored. No selection procedure or sample size is given. With such a small effective N, the reported percentage differences are not statistically meaningful, and the comparison across methods may be driven by a handful of examples. The authors should report the exact number of evaluation items per style, how they were sampled, and ideally confidence intervals or significance tests.
  3. [§5, Eq. (5)] The information-loss bound is not empirically supported. The derivation concludes δ ≈ K/d by invoking the incoherence assumption ∥V^T_{s,K} s_{t,j}∥₂² ≈ K/d, but this assumption is asserted without verification on actual LLM activations. If the top-K style directions are not incoherent with the truth left singular vectors, the bound can be much larger than K/d. The authors should compute δ directly from the actual ΔA_t and V_s,K matrices across heads and layers and report the empirical distribution; otherwise the claim that orthogonal deflation causes only “negligible” information loss is unsupported.
  4. [§6.1, Table 1] There is no unedited baseline that defines “collapse.” The paper’s framing requires showing that stylization degrades truthfulness relative to an unsteered model, but Table 1 contains no no-intervention row (or equivalently γ_s=0, γ_t=0). Without this baseline, the statement that a method “does not even experience stylization-induced truthfulness collapse” is only inferred from high TI combined with low style control, not demonstrated. Adding an unedited-model row would make the collapse magnitude explicit and clarify whether StyliTruth actually preserves truthfulness relative to the original model or merely degrades it less than other baselines.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3, Eq. (1)] There are typesetting issues in the SVD equations: an extra closing parenthesis in σ^{(h,l))}_{s,i}, and the left singular vectors are written inconsistently as s and v. Please define all symbols carefully.
  2. [§4.4] The symbol d is used both for the head output dimension in g^{(h,l)}_{s,i}=σ/d and for the adaptive scaling factor d^{(h,l)}_{s,i}. This is confusing; use different letters (e.g., dim and α).
  3. [Figure 3] The figure contains artifacts such as the mixed “Entangled” label and the Chinese characters “解耦”, which should be removed or translated for a formal submission.
  4. [Front matter] The ACM CCS Concepts, keywords, and reference-format blocks are placeholders (“Do Not Use This Code”, “Conference acronym ’XX”, etc.). These must be replaced with the correct metadata.
  5. [§6.1, §8.4] The LLM-as-judge evaluation for TruthfulQA is described briefly (“comparing logits for ‘yes’ vs. ‘no’”), but the exact prompt, judge model, and scoring protocol are not given. Without this, the truthfulness numbers are hard to reproduce.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Truthfulness gains are measured on the same TruthfulQA contrast pairs used to estimate the truth subspace; no held-out split is described, so the reported TI/S-TI improvements may reduce to in-distribution fitting rather than generalizable truth preservation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 / Section 4.3 / Section 6.1 / Section 8.1]
    "Section 4.1: 'For the truth-relevant sample pairs, positive samples are verified truthful responses, and negative samples are untruthful responses... we denote the truth-relevant sample pair as D_t = {Q_i, R^-_{t,i}, R^+_{t,i}}_{i=1}^{N_t}.' Section 6.1: 'For truth extraction and evaluation, we use TruthfulQA—which includes both truthful and untruthful answers—and its Chinese translation (TruthfulQA (ZH)) to align with the DRC style data.' Section 8.1: 'We reorganize TruthfulQA into 2,312 question–answer pairs, each pairing one question with one truthful and one untruthful response.'"

    The truth-relevant subspace is constructed by SVD on the activation differences ΔA^{(h,l)}_t from D_t (Section 4.3), where D_t is the TruthfulQA contrast pairs described in Section 4.1. The Truth/Info/TI metrics are then computed on the same TruthfulQA benchmark (Section 6.1), and Section 8.1 shows that the data used for truth extraction is the same reorganized 2,312 QA pairs. No held-out split is described for the SVD/steering-vector estimation; the only split (4:1) in Section 4.2 is for probe validation and head selection, not for the subspace basis. Thus the truth steering vectors are fitted to the very questions and answer pairs on which truthfulness is evaluated. The reported TI improvements (e.g., 0.5000 vs. 0.3056 for DRC) therefore measure in-distribution alignment with the trainin

full rationale

The central circularity is data-fitting rather than self-citation: the truth-relevant subspace is estimated from TruthfulQA contrast pairs and evaluated on the same TruthfulQA benchmark, with no described split between subspace construction and evaluation. This makes the Truth/Info/TI results in-distribution measures of how well the fitted truth direction memorizes the benchmark, undermining the paper's claim that StyliTruth preserves truthfulness on unseen stylized queries. The style evaluation is less affected because SI uses a separately trained style classifier and SP/FS are not directly derived from the style contrast pairs used for the style subspace; however, the S-TI metric and the core 'truthfulness collapse' claim depend on the circular TI. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem was found. The issue is consequential enough to raise the score to 7, but it is not a pure definitional identity: a properly held-out TruthfulQA split or an external truthfulness benchmark would make the derivation self-contained and resolve the circularity.

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

The method's central mechanism depends on the linear representation hypothesis and on the assumption that activation differences between contrasting samples isolate a single attribute. The truth-subspace construction is additionally tied to the evaluation benchmark with no described split, which makes the truthfulness score a fitted quantity. The information-loss bound in Section 5 requires an incoherence assumption that is not checked. The free hyperparameters H, K, and the two gamma strengths are not reported.

free parameters (4)
  • H (number of selected style/truth heads)
    Top-H heads chosen by probing accuracy; the paper does not report the value used, nor how it was selected beyond a sensitivity analysis.
  • K (number of top singular vectors per subspace)
    Top-K singular vectors retained after SVD; the value is not specified in the main text or appendix.
  • gamma_s (style editing strength hyperparameter)
    Global strength coefficient in Eq. 4, combined with adaptive scaling; sensitivity analysis varies it, but the chosen value is not reported.
  • gamma_t (truth editing strength hyperparameter)
    Analogous strength coefficient for truth subspace; not specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The linear representation hypothesis: high-level attributes such as style and truth correspond to linear directions in activation space.
    Section 2 and Section 4 rely on this to justify SVD-based steering; if attributes are nonlinearly encoded, adding a linear subspace vector will not cleanly control them.
  • domain assumption Approximate orthogonality of activation differences across different attention heads.
    Used in Section 4.3 Case 1 to treat style- and truth-relevant heads separately; the paper verifies this empirically for its data.
  • ad hoc to paper Incoherence assumption: the top-K style singular vectors are almost uniformly aligned with the truth singular vectors, so that projecting out the style subspace discards only K/d of the truth information.
    Section 5 invokes [4] to bound the relative information loss; this is a strong random-matrix-style assumption about learned activations and is not verified.
  • domain assumption Probabilistic validity of linear probes on final-token activations to select style/truth heads.
    Section 4.2 trains probes on final-token activations; the paper does not examine whether non-final tokens carry different attribute information.
  • domain assumption LLM-as-judge on TruthfulQA yields valid binary truthfulness labels.
    Section 6.1 uses Qwen (or similar) logits for yes/no; this is a common but unvalidated evaluation choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Balancing Stylization and Truth via Disentangled Representation Steering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A3P5D7V2

@misc{pith2026250804530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Balancing Stylization and Truth via Disentangled Representation Steering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A3P5D7V2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04530}
}
read the original abstract

Generating stylized large language model (LLM) responses via representation editing is a promising way for fine-grained output control. However, there exists an inherent trade-off: imposing a distinctive style often degrades truthfulness. Existing representation editing methods, by naively injecting style signals, overlook this collateral impact and frequently contaminate the model's core truthfulness representations, resulting in reduced answer correctness. We term this phenomenon stylization-induced truthfulness collapse. We attribute this issue to latent coupling between style and truth directions in certain key attention heads, and propose StyliTruth, a mechanism that preserves stylization while keeping truthfulness intact. StyliTruth separates the style-relevant and truth-relevant subspaces in the model's representation space via an orthogonal deflation process. This decomposition enables independent control of style and truth in their own subspaces, minimizing interference. By designing adaptive, token-level steering vectors within each subspace, we dynamically and precisely control the generation process to maintain both stylistic fidelity and truthfulness. We validate our method on multiple styles and languages. Extensive experiments and analyses show that StyliTruth significantly reduces stylization-induced truthfulness collapse and outperforms existing inference-time intervention methods in balancing style adherence with truthfulness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.04530 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of stylization-induced truthfulness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Entanglement analysis between style and truth. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The overall pipeline of StyliTruth comprises four stages. First, we construct sample pairs from the style-relevant and truth-relevant datasets. Second, we deploy probes to select the most relevant attention heads for each attribute. Third, we disentangle the style and truth subspaces within the representation space of these heads. Finally, we apply an adaptive, token-level editing mechanism within each subspace. dif… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Projections of activations from positive responses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Projections of activations from stylist responses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Search for Truth from Reasoning: A Dynamic Representation Editing Framework for Steering LLM Trajectories

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    DynaSteer dynamically steers LLM reasoning trajectories toward truth via pattern clustering, Fisher-LDA projection, and entropy-triggered representation edits, improving performance on MATH and generalizing to coding.

  2. Search for Truth from Reasoning: A Dynamic Representation Editing Framework for Steering LLM Trajectories

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    DynaSteer is a dynamic representation editing framework that uses pattern clustering, Fisher-LDA, and lookahead entropy monitoring to steer LLM reasoning trajectories toward truth on MATH and coding tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Guillaume Alain and Benjio Yoshua. 2016. Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.01644 (2016)

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Yonatan Belinkov. 2022. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and ad- vances. Computational Linguistics 48, 1 (2022), 207–219

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Collin Burns, Haotian Ye, Dan Klein, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2023. Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations . https://openreview.net/ forum?id=ETKGuby0hcs

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Emmanuel Candes and Benjamin Recht. 2012. Exact matrix completion via convex optimization. Commun. ACM 55, 6 (2012), 111–119

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Zhongzhi Chen, Xingwu Sun, Xianfeng Jiao, Fengzong Lian, Zhanhui Kang, Di Wang, and Chengzhong Xu. 2024. Truth forest: Toward multi-scale truthfulness in large language models through intervention without tuning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 38. 20967–20974

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Kevin Clark. 2019. What Does Bert Look At? An Analysis of Bert’s Attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.04341 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Samuel Rhys Cox and Wei Tsang Ooi. 2023. Conversational Interactions with NPCs in LLM-Driven Gaming: Guidelines from a Content Analysis of Player Feedback. In International Workshop on Chatbot Research and Design . Springer, 167–184

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Nelson Elhage, Tristan Hume, Catherine Olsson, Nicholas Schiefer, Tom Henighan, Shauna Kravec, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Robert Lasenby, Dawn Drain, Carol Chen, et al . 2022. Toy models of superposition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10652 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Suyu Ge, Yunan Zhang, Liyuan Liu, Minjia Zhang, Jiawei Han, and Jianfeng Gao. 2024. Model Tells You What to Discard: Adaptive KV Cache Compression for LLMs. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations . https://openreview.net/forum?id=uNrFpDPMyo

    2024

  2. [10]

    Chi Han, Jialiang Xu, Manling Li, Yi Fung, Chenkai Sun, Nan Jiang, Tarek Ab- delzaher, and Heng Ji. 2023. Word embeddings are steers for language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12798 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Evan Hernandez, Belinda Z Li, and Jacob Andreas. 2023. Inspecting and editing knowledge representations in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.00740 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Zhiting Hu, Olga Vechtomova, and Rada Mihalcea. 2022. Deep learning for text style transfer: A survey. Computational Linguistics 48, 1 (2022), 155–205

    2022

  5. [13]

    Ole Jorgensen, Dylan Cope, Nandi Schoots, and Murray Shanahan. 2023. Improv- ing activation steering in language models with mean-centring. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03813 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Lingkai Kong, Haorui Wang, Wenhao Mu, Yuanqi Du, Yuchen Zhuang, Yifei Zhou, Yue Song, Rongzhi Zhang, Kai Wang, and Chao Zhang. 2024. Aligning Large Language Models with Representation Editing: A Control Perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05954 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Han Li, Renwen Zhang, Yi-Chieh Lee, Robert E Kraut, and David C Mohr. 2023. Systematic review and meta-analysis of AI-based conversational agents for pro- moting mental health and well-being. NPJ Digital Medicine 6, 1 (2023), 236

    2023

  8. [16]

    Kenneth Li, Oam Patel, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Wat- tenberg. 2023. Inference-time intervention: Eliciting truthful answers from a language model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2021. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07958 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Xinyu Ma, Yifeng Xu, Yang Lin, Tianlong Wang, Xu Chu, Xin Gao, Junfeng Zhao, and Yasha Wang. 2025. DRESSing up LLM: Efficient stylized question-answering via style subspace editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14371 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Sidharth Mudgal, Jong Lee, Harish Ganapathy, Yaguang Li, Tao Wang, Yanping Huang, Zhifeng Chen, Heng-Tze Cheng, Michael Collins, Trevor Strohman, Jilin Chen, Alex Beutel, and Ahmad Beirami. 2024. Controlled Decoding from Lan- guage Models. In Proceedings of the 41st Internatio...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Duy Nguyen, Archiki Prasad, Elias Stengel-Eskin, and Mohit Bansal. 2025. Multi- attribute steering of language models via targeted intervention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12446 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Guillermo Ortiz-Jimenez, Alessandro Favero, and Pascal Frossard. 2023. Task arithmetic in the tangent space: Improved editing of pre-trained models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Nina Panickssery, Nick Gabrieli, Julian Schulz, Meg Tong, Evan Hubinger, and Alexander Matt Turner. [n. d.]. Steering llama 2 via contrastive activation addition,

  15. [23]

    Nina Panickssery, Nick Gabrieli, Julian Schulz, Meg Tong, Evan Hubinger, and Alexander Matt Turner. 2023. Steering llama 2 via contrastive activation addition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06681 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Yunfan Shao, Linyang Li, Junqi Dai, and Xipeng Qiu. 2023. Character-LLM: A Trainable Agent for Role-Playing. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 13153–13187. https://aclanthology....

    2023

  17. [25]

    Oscar Skean, Md Rifat Arefin, Dan Zhao, Niket Nikul Patel, Jalal Naghiyev, Yann LeCun, and Ravid Shwartz-Ziv. [n. d.]. Layer by Layer: Uncovering Hidden Representations in Language Models. In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning

  18. [26]

    Alexander Matt Turner, Lisa Thiergart, Gavin Leech, David Udell, Juan J Vazquez, Ulisse Mini, and Monte MacDiarmid. 2023. Activation addition: Steering language models without optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10248 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A Vaswani. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Zhichao Wang and Yizhe Zhu. 2023. Overparameterized random feature re- gression with nearly orthogonal data. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 8463–8493

    2023

  21. [29]

    Mengqi Zhang, Zisheng Zhou, Xiaotian Ye, Qiang Liu, Zhaochun Ren, Zhumin Chen, and Pengjie Ren. 2025. Disentangling Knowledge Representations for Large Language Model Editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18774 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Andy Zou, Long Phan, Sarah Chen, James Campbell, Phillip Guo, Richard Ren, Alexander Pan, Xuwang Yin, Mantas Mazeika, Ann-Kathrin Dombrowski, et al

  23. [2023]

    yes” versus “no

    Representation engineering: A top-down approach to ai transparency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01405 (2023). Balancing Stylization and Truth via Disentangled Representation Steering Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY 8 Appendices 8.1 Datasets In our experim...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.