Strength Controls Change How Interventions Compare Across Sparse Autoencoder Codes
Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
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:2610.16325v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a steering intervention changes a language model's behavior, which part of the intervention deserves the credit? We test this question for a targe...
arXiv:2606. 18322v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) decompose residual-stream activations into interpretable features.
arXiv:2607. 10226v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We evaluate when sparse autoencoder (SAE) features act as localized control handles for safety-relevant behavior.
The paper introduces a controlled benchmark for deciding whether to acquire a third modality or abstain when audio, video, and text scores conflict. A threshold policy that observes two signed scores can request the third at a cost and abstain, achieving higher targeted decision accuracy and utility than always-answer fusion under certain reward settings. Experiments on synthetic and real data show that the policy’s advantage depends on the ambiguity mechanism, budget constraints, and the ranking of observed pairs, highlighting the trade‑off between full-modality accuracy and pre‑request selection value.
arXiv:2608. 09490v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Task arithmetic treats fine-tuning displacements as composable directions in weight space, yet it remains unclear when parameter addition reflects predictable changes in model function.