Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

EasyEdit2: An Easy-to-use Steering Framework for Editing Large Language Models

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read EasyEdit2 claims test-time steering vectors can control six LLM behaviors—safety, sentiment, personality, reasoning, factuality, language—without touching weights, and merged vectors match single-task ones.

desk verdict EasyEdit2 is a genuinely useful integrated steering framework, but its headline 'single example' promise is untested—every quantitative experiment uses 2,000 training examples. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15133 v3 pith:KC3XDEVB submitted 2025-04-21 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CVcs.HCcs.LG

Ziwen Xu , Shuxun Wang , Kewei Xu , Haoming Xu , Mengru Wang , Xinle Deng , Yunzhi Yao , Guozhou Zheng
show 2 more authors
Huajun Chen Ningyu Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CVcs.HCcs.LG
keywords test-timesteeringvectorscontrastiveactivationadditionvectormergingLLMbehaviorcontrolsafetyalignmentsentimentfew-shot
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

EasyEdit2 claims to make test-time control of large language models plug-and-play: a user generates a steering vector from contrastive examples, applies it during the forward pass, and thereby shifts behavior on safety, sentiment, personality, reasoning, factuality, or language features, with no parameter updates. The framework packages vector generation, application, merging, and evaluation into two core modules plus a vector library, so that multiple behavioral objectives can be combined by algebraic vector merging. The central empirical result is that merged safety and sentiment vectors perform on par with or better than single-task vectors on Gemma-2-9B and Qwen-2.5-7B. A sympathetic reading takes the paper's claim to be that accessible, adjustable, composable LLM steering is achievable with existing activation-based methods, and that a single contrastive example can suffice. If true, users without technical expertise could tune model behavior by supplying one positive and one negative example.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the steering vector: the mean activation difference between a model's representations on positive and negative contrastive examples, computed by Contrastive Activation Addition (CAA) and applied by adding the scaled vector to intermediate activations during the forward pass. The framework's two modules—the steering vector generator and the steering vector applier—automate this pipeline, while the vector library's merging strategies (Linear, TIES, DARE-TIES) combine multiple vectors algebraically so a single intervention can steer several objectives at once. This machinery lets intervention strength be tuned by a single multiplier and lets users reuse or merge vectors without re-engineering the model.

What would settle it

Take one positive and one negative contrastive example for a behavior (e.g., toxic vs. nontoxic response), generate a CAA steering vector with EasyEdit2, and apply it to the paper's 1,200 held-out RealToxicityPrompts: if defense rate stays near the unsteered baseline while the 2,000-example vector raises it substantially, the single-example ease-of-use claim is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLM behavior can be edited at test time through steering vectors—activation-space directions computed from contrastive pairs—and that EasyEdit2 makes this process easy enough for nonexperts. The architecture separates a steering vector generator from a steering vector applier, with a model wrapper that applies prompt-based, activation-based, and (reserved) decoding-based interventions simultaneously. A steering vector library stores reusable vectors and supports Linear, TIES, and DARE-TIES merging, letting users fuse separately trained vectors. Experiments report that CAA and STA outperform LM-Steer and Promptauto for safety and sentiment control on two 7-9B models, and that merged CAA vectors reach or exceed single-task performance. The paper also claims fine-grained concept control via SAE features and prompt-based methods on AXBENCH, and bidirectional adjustability through a multiplier.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's ease-of-use promise rests on a single contrastive example producing a steering vector that generalizes to unseen prompts, but every reported experiment trains vectors on 2,000 examples and none tests the one-example regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the headline ease-of-use claim holds, a nonexpert can produce a usable steering vector from a single contrastive example, removing the need for curated training sets in routine control tasks.
  • Merged vectors allow multi-objective control: one vector combination can simultaneously raise safety defense rate and positive sentiment, matching or beating task-specific vectors.
  • Because interventions are applied only during the forward pass, the base model remains unchanged, so steering can be toggled on and off and adjusted continuously without retraining.
  • The same framework spans coarse intensity-driven tasks (safety, sentiment) and fine-grained concept control (AXBENCH), suggesting one toolchain can cover both regimes.
  • The reserved decoding-based interface means decoding-time control can be added into the same wrapper later, extending the unified interface.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Testable extension: run CAA with a single contrastive pair versus the paper's 2,000-example setup on the same safety and sentiment splits; if the single-pair vector yields near-baseline defense rates, the accessibility promise needs qualification.
  • The merged-vector result hints that safety and sentiment steering directions are nearly orthogonal in activation space; if true, merging more objectives such as persona plus language should also avoid interference, a combination the paper does not test.
  • The observed fluency gains at higher multipliers, despite fluency not being directly optimized, suggest steering vectors may amplify model confidence generally; this could be studied as a separate phenomenon.
  • The paper's own case study shows steering can move a safe model to unsafe outputs, so the same algebraic merging that composes safety with user preferences is dual-use and needs safeguards.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. EasyEdit2 is described as a plug-and-play, test-time steering framework for large language models. The paper presents a modular architecture with a steering vector generator, steering vector applier, vector library with merging strategies (Linear, TIES, DARE-TIES), and evaluators for safety, sentiment, personality, reasoning, factuality, and language features. The central ease-of-use promise is that a single contrastive example suffices to generate effective steering vectors. Experiments report single-task and multi-task steering results for safety and sentiment on Gemma-2-9B and Qwen-2.5-7B, plus a partial AXBENCH evaluation on one subset, and the paper includes case studies, an online demo, and a public code release.

Significance. If the claims are verified, EasyEdit2 addresses a legitimate integration gap: it unifies several activation-, prompt-, and decoding-based steering approaches behind a common API, supports vector merging for multi-objective control, and provides a graphical demo and open-source release, which could lower the practical barrier for applying steering methods. However, the empirical support is currently thin. The single-example claim—the paper's headline—is never tested, and the quantitative evaluations lack statistical rigor and broad coverage. The framework's design is plausible and the code availability is a strength, but the paper's central promises are not yet substantiated by the presented experiments. As a system-demonstration paper, the contribution is potentially useful but currently overstated.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; §1; Appendix B.1] The Abstract and Section 1 state that 'with just a single example' users can effectively guide and adjust model responses. All quantitative experiments for safety and sentiment use 2,000 training examples (Appendix B.1), and the AXBENCH evaluation uses the full preference training data of the D9B L20 subset (Appendix B.3.1). No experiment varies the number of contrastive pairs, and no single-example performance is reported. Without such an ablation, the central ease-of-use claim is unsupported, even if the framework works well with larger training sets.
  2. [Table 2; §4.2] Table 2 reports single point estimates without standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Differences such as the safety DR improvement from 64.80 (CAA) to 63.64 (LM-Steer) on Gemma-2-9B are within typical noise for this evaluation. The text in §4.2 that CAA and STA 'consistently outperform' other methods and that merged vectors perform 'on par with or even outperform' single-task vectors is therefore not statistically supported. Multiple seeds or bootstrap intervals are needed to substantiate these claims.
  3. [Appendix B.3.2; Table 3] The AXBENCH evaluation samples only 10 instructions per concept from Alpaca-Eval (Appendix B.3.2) and covers only the D9B L20 subset for Gemma-2-9B-it. No variance or significance information is reported. The conclusions in §4.2 and B.3.3 that prompt-based methods are better for fine-grained control and activation-based methods are better for coarse tasks are drawn from this very small, single-subset, single-model sample, which does not support the generality of the claim.
  4. [Table 2; §4.2 (merged vs. single-task)] In Table 2, the single-task rows are trained and tested on one task only, while the merged rows are evaluated on both tasks jointly. To support the claim that merged vectors perform 'on par with or even outperform' single-task vectors, the comparison should be apples-to-apples: the paper should also report how each single-task vector performs on the other task, or provide a trade-off curve. As presented, the merged vector may pay a per-task performance cost that is not visible in the aggregate comparison.
  5. [Table 1; §3.1] The paper claims to support six intervention scenarios (safety, sentiment, personality, reasoning, factuality, and language features), but quantitative evidence is provided only for safety and sentiment, plus one AXBENCH subset that largely measures concept control. The remaining scenarios are supported only by anecdotal case studies in Table 1. Given that the framework's stated broad versatility is a key selling point, at least a few quantitative results or systematic evaluations for these additional scenarios are needed to justify the claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6] The conclusion states 'fine-gained control' where 'fine-grained control' is intended; please correct the typo.
  2. [Table 2] The column formatting in Table 2 appears broken, with merged multi-task rows spilling into the single-task columns; this makes the table difficult to parse and should be fixed.
  3. [Section 5] The text mentions a 'demonstration notebook' but does not describe its contents; a brief description or reference to the repository would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Ethics Statement] The ethics statement acknowledges the risk of malicious use but the paper does not report any evaluation of the system's safety under adversarial conditions; this would be useful context for users.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: EasyEdit2 is an integration/evaluation framework whose steering vectors are trained on source datasets and measured on held-out benchmarks; the untested single-example claim is an evidence gap, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

Walking the paper's claimed chain: (1) steering vectors are generated from contrastive pairs (CAA/STA/LM-Steer) or prompts, (2) applied via the applier module, and (3) evaluated on separate datasets, namely RealToxicityPrompts safety prompts and the Han et al. Neutral sentiment set for Table 2, and Alpaca-Eval instructions with GPT-4o-mini concept/instruction/fluency scores for Table 3. The reported metrics (defense rate, positive rate, AXBENCH scores) are not defined in terms of the training labels or the generated vectors by any equation in the paper; they are measured on held-out inputs. The merged-vector result is likewise an empirical comparison of Linear/TIES/DARE-TIES fusion on both tasks, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. No uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise is supported solely by a same-author citation: EasyEdit1 is cited only as the framework's predecessor, and STA, while from the same group, is used as one of several externally evaluated steering methods rather than as authority for a conclusion. The abstract's 'single example' ease-of-use promise is not tested anywhere, since all quantitative experiments use 2,000 training examples (Appendix B.1) and AXBENCH uses the full preference training data (Appendix B.3.1), but this is an unsupported empirical claim, not a circular derivation. Under the hard rule requiring a quoted equation or a fitted-input reduction, no circular step can be exhibited; the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework adds no free-standing theoretical objects. Its load-bearing premises are the linear representation hypothesis, the transferability of contrastive vectors, and the validity of automatic evaluation metrics, all of which are shared with prior activation steering work. The hand-selected intervention layers and multipliers are empirical choices that affect the reported numbers.

free parameters (3)
  • Intervention layer for CAA/STA = 24 (Gemma-2-9B), 16 (Qwen2.5-7B)
    Chosen by hand per model in Section 4.1; the paper does not justify the choice or report sensitivity to this layer, and steering effectiveness can depend on it.
  • Steering multiplier = range -2 to 2 in the adjustability experiment
    User-controlled scaling factor for steering vectors (Appendix B.2); the paper uses it to show bidirectional control but does not identify an optimal value, treating it as a free knob.
  • Toxicity score threshold = 0.5
    Used to define Defense Rate as the fraction of outputs with toxicity below 0.5 (Appendix B.1); the threshold is standard in prior work (e.g., Han et al., 2024a) and not fitted here, but it determines the reported safety scores.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Concepts are linearly represented in activation space, so adding a scaled contrastive steering vector shifts model behavior in the intended direction.
    Underlies all activation-based methods in the framework (Section 2, Section 3.3); if this representation claim fails, the steering vectors would not transfer across prompts and models.
  • domain assumption Steering vectors computed on training data generalize to the evaluation sets used in the experiments.
    CAA vectors trained on Jigsaw toxicity data and SST-2 sentiment data are applied to RealToxicityPrompts and the Neutral sentiment set (Section 4.1, Appendix B.1); this out-of-distribution transfer is assumed rather than demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Automatic evaluation scores (Perspective API, HuggingFace sentiment classifier, GPT-4o-mini judgments) accurately reflect the target behavioral change in steered outputs.
    Defense Rate, Positive Rate, and AXBENCH concept scores all rely on these classifiers (Section 4.2, Appendix B.3); systematic metric artifacts could make steering appear more effective than it is.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EasyEdit2: An Easy-to-use Steering Framework for Editing Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KC3XDEVB

@misc{pith2026250415133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EasyEdit2: An Easy-to-use Steering Framework for Editing Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KC3XDEVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15133}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we introduce EasyEdit2, a framework designed to enable plug-and-play adjustability for controlling Large Language Model (LLM) behaviors. EasyEdit2 supports a wide range of test-time interventions, including safety, sentiment, personality, reasoning patterns, factuality, and language features. Unlike its predecessor, EasyEdit2 features a new architecture specifically designed for seamless model steering. It comprises key modules such as the steering vector generator and the steering vector applier, which enable automatic generation and application of steering vectors to influence the model's behavior without modifying its parameters. One of the main advantages of EasyEdit2 is its ease of use-users do not need extensive technical knowledge. With just a single example, they can effectively guide and adjust the model's responses, making precise control both accessible and efficient. Empirically, we report model steering performance across different LLMs, demonstrating the effectiveness of these techniques. We have released the source code on GitHub at https://github.com/zjunlp/EasyEdit along with a demonstration notebook. In addition, we provide a demo video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkfoiPfp5rQ for a quick introduction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15133 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Editing LLM behaviors via steering. One of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visual depiction of diverse scenarios in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The overall architecture of EasyEdit2. The framework consists of several key components: (1) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gradio-based online demo, showing the test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Adjustability analysis of steering vectors. Adjusting the magnitude (multiplier) of merged vectors enables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A code snippet in EasyEdit2 using CAA to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SAE-based fine-grained manipulation tab, showing feature-based steering for model control. In this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Agent Security Needs Redefinition through a Holistic Framework

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Agent security should be redefined around four contextual authorization properties instead of the content of the action performed.

  2. MemOS: An Operating System for Memory-Augmented Generation (MAG) in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A unified memory-operating-system design for LLMs, built around a MemCube abstraction, is presented without any experimental validation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Rishabh Agarwal, Avi Singh, Lei Zhang, Bernd Bohnet, Luis Rosias, Stephanie C. Y. Chan, Biao Zhang, Ankesh Anand, Zaheer Abbas, Azade Nova, John D. Co - Reyes, Eric Chu, Feryal M. P. Behbahani, Aleksandra Faust, and Hugo Larochelle. 2024. http://papers.nips.cc/paper\_files/paper/2024/hash/8cb564df771e9eacbfe9d72bd46a24a9-Abstract-Conference.html Many-shot...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Bowman, Ethan Perez, Roger B

    Cem Anil, Esin Durmus, Nina Panickssery, Mrinank Sharma, Joe Benton, Sandipan Kundu, Joshua Batson, Meg Tong, Jesse Mu, Daniel Ford, Francesco Mosconi, Rajashree Agrawal, Rylan Schaeffer, Naomi Bashkansky, Samuel Svenningsen, Mike Lambert, Ansh Radhakrishnan, Carson Denison, Evan Hubinger, Yuntao Bai, Trenton Bricken, Timothy Maxwell, Nicholas Schiefer, J...

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Lukasz Bartoszcze, Sarthak Munshi, Bryan Sukidi, Jennifer Yen, Zejia Yang, David Williams-King, Linh Le, Kosi Asuzu, and Carsten Maple. 2025. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:276580063 Representation engineering for large-language models: Survey and research challenges

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Reza Bayat, Ali Rahimi-Kalahroudi, Mohammad Pezeshki, Sarath Chandar, and Pascal Vincent. 2025. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:276741895 Steering large language model activations in sparse spaces

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Yoshua Bengio, S \"o ren Mindermann, Daniel Privitera, Tamay Besiroglu, Rishi Bommasani, Stephen Casper, Yejin Choi, Philip Fox, Ben Garfinkel, Danielle Goldfarb, et al. 2025. International ai safety report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17805

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Yuanpu Cao, Tianrong Zhang, Bochuan Cao, Ziyi Yin, Lu Lin, Fenglong Ma, and Jinghui Chen. 2024. Personalized steering of large language models: Versatile steering vectors through bi-directional preference optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:49519--49551

    2024

  7. [7]

    Sviatoslav Chalnev, Matthew Siu, and Arthur Conmy. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2411.02193 Improving steering vectors by targeting sparse autoencoder features . CoRR, abs/2411.02193

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.02193 2024

  8. [8]

    Tyler A Chang and Benjamin K Bergen. 2024. Language model behavior: A comprehensive survey. Computational Linguistics, 50(1):293--350

    work page 2024

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Runjin Chen, Zhenyu Zhang, Junyuan Hong, Souvik Kundu, and Zhangyang Wang. 2025. Seal: Steerable reasoning calibration of large language models for free. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07986

    2025

  2. [10]

    cjadams, Daniel Borkan, inversion, Jeffrey Sorensen, Lucas Dixon, Lucy Vasserman, and nithum. 2019. Jigsaw unintended bias in toxicity classification. https://kaggle.com/competitions/jigsaw-unintended-bias-in-toxicity-classification. Kaggle

    2019

  3. [11]

    Sumanth Dathathri, Andrea Madotto, Janice Lan, Jane Hung, Eric Frank, Piero Molino, Jason Yosinski, and Rosanne Liu. 2020. https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1edEyBKDS Plug and play language models: A simple approach to controlled text generation . In 8th International Conferenc...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Esin Durmus, Alex Tamkin, Jack Clark, Jerry Wei, Jonathan Marcus, Joshua Batson, Kunal Handa, Liane Lovitt, Meg Tong, Miles McCain, Oliver Rausch, Saffron Huang, Sam Bowman, Stuart Ritchie, Tom Henighan, and Deep Ganguli. 2024. https://anthropic.com/research/evaluating-feature...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Eoin Farrell, Yeu - Tong Lau, and Arthur Conmy. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2410.19278 Applying sparse autoencoders to unlearn knowledge in language models . CoRR, abs/2410.19278

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Javier Ferrando, Oscar Obeso, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, and Neel Nanda. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2411.14257 Do I know this entity? knowledge awareness and hallucinations in language models . CoRR, abs/2411.14257

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2020.FINDINGS-EMNLP.301 Realtoxicityprompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ...

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Charles Goddard, Shamane Siriwardhana, Malikeh Ehghaghi, Luke Meyers, Vladimir Karpukhin, Brian Benedict, Mark McQuade, and Jacob Solawetz. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-industry.36 Arcee ' s M erge K it: A toolkit for merging large language models . In Proceedi...

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Abdelzaher, and Heng Ji

    Chi Han, Jialiang Xu, Manling Li, Yi Fung, Chenkai Sun, Nan Jiang, Tarek F. Abdelzaher, and Heng Ji. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2024.ACL-LONG.864 Word embeddings are steers for language models . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa...

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Zeyu Han, Chao Gao, Jinyang Liu, Jeff Zhang, and Sai Qian Zhang. 2024 b . https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2403.14608 Parameter-efficient fine-tuning for large models: A comprehensive survey . CoRR, abs/2403.14608

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Tom Hartvigsen, Swami Sankaranarayanan, Hamid Palangi, Yoon Kim, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. 2023. http://papers.nips.cc/paper\_files/paper/2023/hash/95b6e2ff961580e03c0a662a63a71812-Abstract-Conference.html Aging with GRACE: lifelong model editing with discrete key-value adaptors ....

    2023

  12. [20]

    Guoxiu He, Xin Song, and Aixin Sun. 2025. Knowledge updating? no more model editing! just selective contextual reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05212

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hanjiang Hu, Alexander Robey, and Changliu Liu. 2025. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:276742099 Steering dialogue dynamics for robustness against multi-turn jailbreaking attacks

    2025

  14. [22]

    Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P Xing. 2017. Toward controlled generation of text. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1587--1596. PMLR

    2017

  15. [23]

    Robert Huben, Hoagy Cunningham, Logan Riggs, Aidan Ewart, and Lee Sharkey. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=F76bwRSLeK Sparse autoencoders find highly interpretable features in language models . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 202...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Hashimoto

    Xuechen Li, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Alpacaeval: An automatic evaluator of instruction-following models. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/alpaca_eval

    2023

  17. [25]

    Xun Liang, Hanyu Wang, Yezhaohui Wang, Shichao Song, Jiawei Yang, Simin Niu, Jie Hu, Dan Liu, Shunyu Yao, Feiyu Xiong, and Zhiyu Li. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2408.12599 Controllable text generation for large language models: A survey . CoRR, abs/2408.12599

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Alisa Liu, Maarten Sap, Ximing Lu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2021. Dexperts: Decoding-time controlled text generation with experts and anti-experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03023

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Yang Liu, Yuanshun Yao, Jean-Francois Ton, Xiaoying Zhang, Ruocheng Guo, Hao Cheng, Yegor Klochkov, Muhammad Faaiz Taufiq, and Hang Li. 2023. Trustworthy llms: a survey and guideline for evaluating large language models' alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05374

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Harry Mayne, Yushi Yang, and Adam Mahdi. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2411.08790 Can sparse autoencoders be used to decompose and interpret steering vectors? CoRR, abs/2411.08790

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Tom \' a s Mikolov, Wen - tau Yih, and Geoffrey Zweig. 2013. https://aclanthology.org/N13-1090/ Linguistic regularities in continuous space word representations . In Human Language Technologies: Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Lingu...

    2013

  22. [30]

    Neel Nanda, Andrew Lee, and Martin Wattenberg. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.BLACKBOXNLP-1.2 Emergent linear representations in world models of self-supervised sequence models . In Proceedings of the 6th BlackboxNLP Workshop: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks...

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Kiho Park, Yo Joong Choe, and Victor Veitch. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=UGpGkLzwpP The linear representation hypothesis and the geometry of large language models . In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3115/V1/D14-1162 Glove: Global vectors for word representation . In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2014, October 25-29, 2014,...

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    Nina Rimsky, Nick Gabrieli, Julian Schulz, Meg Tong, Evan Hubinger, and Alexander Matt Turner. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2024.ACL-LONG.828 Steering llama 2 via contrastive activation addition . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computatio...

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Marco Scialanga, Thibault Laugel, Vincent Grari, and Marcin Detyniecki. 2025. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:276774989 Sake: Steering activations for knowledge editing

    2025

  27. [35]

    Turner, and Luis Espinosa Anke

    Zara Siddique, Liam D. Turner, and Luis Espinosa Anke. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2505.06262 Dialz: A python toolkit for steering vectors . CoRR, abs/2505.06262

    2025 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts

    Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D13-1170 Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank . In Proceedings of the 2013 Conferenc...

    2013

  29. [37]

    Samuel Soo, Wesley Teng, and Chandrasekaran Balaganesh. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2501.09929 Steering large language models with feature guided activation additions . CoRR, abs/2501.09929

    2025 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Alessandro Stolfo, Vidhisha Balachandran, Safoora Yousefi, Eric Horvitz, and Besmira Nushi. 2024. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:273403586 Improving instruction-following in language models through activation steering . ArXiv, abs/2410.12877

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Jiuding Sun, Sidharth Baskaran, Zhengxuan Wu, Michael Sklar, Christopher Potts, and Atticus Geiger. 2025. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:279155313 Hypersteer: Activation steering at scale with hypernetworks

    2025

  32. [40]

    Gemma Team, Morgane Riviere, and Shreya Pathak et al. 2024. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:270843326 Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size . ArXiv, abs/2408.00118

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Daniel Freeman, Theodore R

    Adly Templeton, Tom Conerly, Jonathan Marcus, Jack Lindsey, Trenton Bricken, Brian Chen, Adam Pearce, Craig Citro, Emmanuel Ameisen, Andy Jones, Hoagy Cunningham, Nicholas L Turner, Callum McDougall, Monte MacDiarmid, C. Daniel Freeman, Theodore R. Sumers, Edward Rees, Joshua ...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Udell, Juan J

    Alexander Matt Turner, Lisa Thiergart, Gavin Leech, David S. Udell, Juan J. Vazquez, Ulisse Mini, and Monte Stuart MacDiarmid. 2023. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:261049449 Steering language models with activation engineering

    2023

  35. [43]

    Boxin Wang, Weixin Chen, Hengzhi Pei, Chulin Xie, Mintong Kang, Chenhui Zhang, Chejian Xu, Zidi Xiong, Ritik Dutta, Rylan Schaeffer, et al. 2023. Decodingtrust: A comprehensive assessment of trustworthiness in gpt models. In NeurIPS

    2023

  36. [44]

    Meng Wang, Ziwen Xu, Shengyu Mao, Shumin Deng, Zhaopeng Tu, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. 2025. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:278910891 Beyond prompt engineering: Robust behavior control in llms via steering target atoms

    2025

  37. [45]

    Mengru Wang, Ningyu Zhang, Ziwen Xu, Zekun Xi, Shumin Deng, Yunzhi Yao, Qishen Zhang, Linyi Yang, Jindong Wang, and Huajun Chen. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2024.ACL-LONG.171 Detoxifying large language models via knowledge editing . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual M...

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Peng Wang, Ningyu Zhang, Bozhong Tian, Zekun Xi, Yunzhi Yao, Ziwen Xu, Mengru Wang, Shengyu Mao, Xiaohan Wang, Siyuan Cheng, et al. 2024 b . Easyedit: An easy-to-use knowledge editing framework for large language models. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Associa...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Weixuan Wang, Jingyuan Yang, and Wei Peng. 2024 c . https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2410.12299 Semantics-adaptive activation intervention for llms via dynamic steering vectors . CoRR, abs/2410.12299

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    Jan Wehner, Sahar Abdelnabi, Daniel Tan, David Krueger, and Mario Fritz. 2025. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:276647419 Taxonomy, opportunities, and challenges of representation engineering for large language models

    2025

  41. [49]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, R \' e mi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger,...

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Morcos, Hongseok Namkoong, Ali Farhadi, Yair Carmon, Simon Kornblith, and Ludwig Schmidt

    Mitchell Wortsman, Gabriel Ilharco, Samir Yitzhak Gadre, Rebecca Roelofs, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Ari S. Morcos, Hongseok Namkoong, Ali Farhadi, Yair Carmon, Simon Kornblith, and Ludwig Schmidt. 2022. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v162/wortsman22a.html Model soups: averaging we...

    2022

  43. [51]

    Manning, and Christopher Potts

    Zhengxuan Wu, Aryaman Arora, Atticus Geiger, Zheng Wang, Jing Huang, Dan Jurafsky, Christopher D. Manning, and Christopher Potts. 2025 a . https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2501.17148 Axbench: Steering llms? even simple baselines outperform sparse autoencoders . CoRR, abs/2501.17148

    2025 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    Manning, and Christopher Potts

    Zhengxuan Wu, Qinan Yu, Aryaman Arora, Christopher D. Manning, and Christopher Potts. 2025 b . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:278912013 Improved representation steering for language models

    2025

  45. [53]

    Raffel, and Mohit Bansal

    Prateek Yadav, Derek Tam, Leshem Choshen, Colin A. Raffel, and Mohit Bansal. 2023. http://papers.nips.cc/paper\_files/paper/2023/hash/1644c9af28ab7916874f6fd6228a9bcf-Abstract-Conference.html Ties-merging: Resolving interference when merging models . In Advances in Neural Info...

    2023

  46. [54]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Guanting Dong, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jialin Wang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Ma, Jin Xu, Jingren Zhou, Jinze Bai, Jinzheng...

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Kevin Yang and Dan Klein. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2021.NAACL-MAIN.276 FUDGE: controlled text generation with future discriminators . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language T...

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Shu Yang, Shenzhe Zhu, Ruoxuan Bao, Liang Liu, Yu Cheng, Lijie Hu, Mengdi Li, and Di Wang. 2024 b . What makes your model a low-empathy or warmth person: Exploring the origins of personality in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10863

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Yunzhi Yao, Peng Wang, Bozhong Tian, Siyuan Cheng, Zhoubo Li, Shumin Deng, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. 2023. Editing large language models: Problems, methods, and opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages...

    2023

  50. [58]

    Le Yu, Bowen Yu, Haiyang Yu, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=fq0NaiU8Ex Language models are super mario: Absorbing abilities from homologous models as a free lunch . In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna...

    2024

  51. [59]

    Ningyu Zhang, Yunzhi Yao, Bozhong Tian, Peng Wang, Shumin Deng, Mengru Wang, Zekun Xi, Shengyu Mao, Jintian Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, et al. 2024. A comprehensive study of knowledge editing for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01286

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223, 1(2)

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Yu Zhao, Alessio Devoto, Giwon Hong, Xiaotang Du, Aryo Pradipta Gema, Hongru Wang, Xuanli He, Kam - Fai Wong, and Pasquale Minervini. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2410.15999 Steering knowledge selection behaviours in llms via sae-based representation engineering . CoRR...

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    Byun, Zifan Wang, Alex Troy Mallen, Steven Basart, Sanmi Koyejo, Dawn Song, Matt Fredrikson, Zico Kolter, and Dan Hendrycks

    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 Troy Mallen, Steven Basart, Sanmi Koyejo, Dawn Song, Matt Fredrikson, Zi...

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  56. [64]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.