arXiv:2606. 08365v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sparse autoencoder (SAE) features are increasingly used to steer language models, but feature steering is rarely clean: the same intervention can behave inconsistently across contexts and perturb unrelated features.
arXiv:2608. 05164v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Independently trained large language models may develop shared internal representations of semantic concepts despite architectural differences -- but whether this geometric similarity has functional consequences for cross-model behavioural control remains untested.
The study investigates how post‑training quantization (PTQ) affects proactive interference (PI) in large language models. Using bitsandbytes, the authors compare FP16, INT8, and INT4/NF4 precision across three instruction‑tuned models and find that INT4 quantization markedly degrades accuracy under high interference, with INT8 also incurring a smaller penalty in two of the three models. The degradation is linked to increased same‑key intrusion errors and originates in the quantized transformer backbone rather than the output layer.
arXiv:2605. 28854v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable flexibility in adapting to novel tasks from in-context examples without parameter updates, a capability known as in-context learning (ICL).
arXiv:2510.01030v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The human ability to translate diverse perceptual and linguistic inputs into structured behavior has been thought to rest on learning robust repres...
arXiv:2606. 01060v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Preference alignment has substantially improved the observable behavior of large language models, yet it remains unclear what alignment changes internally.
arXiv:2607. 08605v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) have emerged as a promising technique for mechanistic interpretability by learning a set of sparse latent features in large models, each of which encodes a distinct concept.
The study compares an English-only and a bilingual decoder-only model, each 310 M parameters, trained on eight diverse languages while controlling for English exposure, compute, and document overlap. After aligning on shared English vocabulary, the authors find that token embeddings appear similar, but the deeper hidden states used for prediction diverge across models. This hidden‑state mismatch grows through middle transformer layers and persists despite controls, indicating that contextual processing differs between the models. "whyItMatters":"The findings show that embedding alignment can conceal significant internal representation differences, which is crucial for any downstream work that assumes aligned multilingual models are interchangeable."
arXiv:2607. 16741v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: B\"urger et al.
arXiv:2408.11827v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Understanding how language models compose meaning from linguistic input remains a central problem in interpretability research. Mechanistic studies...
arXiv:2602. 22600v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Training selects for behavior, not circuitry: many weight configurations can implement the same function.
arXiv:2606. 07559v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Fine-tuning a language model on contexts whose correct completion has a near-synonym competitor often fails silently.