Modern LLMs are alarmingly susceptible to surprisingly simple immaterial changes of input prompts: a casual hint, an incorrectly labeled few-shot example, or a fake prior assistant turn often flips an originally correct answer. We study where this susceptibility, spanning sycophancy and related cue-induced biases, lives inside the model. Across five model families and seven BCT bias types, we extract a per-bias direction from hidden states and triangulate it through three measures: probing, leave-one-dataset-out transfer, and causal intervention. The susceptibility is largely installed by alignment tuning rather than pretraining: pretrained base models barely cave to these biases, and their activations carry no cue-specific signal beyond question content. Within aligned models, each bias becomes a single coherent direction that we can both decode and steer along, recovering the unbiased answer across every family we test. The biases stay representationally distinct, however: cross-bias entanglement is model-specific rather than a property of the bias category, and even behaviorally similar biases occupy different directions. The same intervention also serves as a modest debiasing tool, recovering a meaningful share of bias-induced errors while preserving most correct answers across all instruct families. Cue-induced bias is therefore best understood not as a single flaw in LLMs but as a family of distinct, causally active directions that alignment tuning installs.
Prakhar Gupta, Terry Jingchen Zhang, Florent Draye et al.· 0 citations
The target representation defines the distribution an image generator must learn, yet it is often treated as an interchangeable interface. This assumption is particularly questionable for continuous masked generators, which combine contextual inference from visible tokens with conditional modeling of each missing token. We study raw pixels, SD-VAE latents and DINOv2 as well as MAE representation-autoencoder features within a unified masked autoregressive rectified-flow model. Under a shared ImageNet training budget, these spaces exhibit distinct optimization and inference regimes. DINOv2 converges fastest in both iterations and computation but benefits strongly from a wider local denoiser and direct context fusion. Pixels optimize substantially more slowly and require a different prediction, masking, and guidance configuration. MAE reconstructs images more faithfully and exhibits clear semantic clustering, yet produces generations substantially worse than DINOv2. The representations also respond differently to classifier-free guidance and occupy distinct precision-recall trade-offs. Together, our results show that compression, reconstruction fidelity, token dimensionality, and visible semantic clustering do not individually predict generative behavior. Instead, target representations redistribute difficulty across contextual modeling, per-token denoising, and inference-time distributional control.
Marcel Plocher, Bernhard Schölkopf, Andreas Geiger et al.· 0 citations
