跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.07071 · v1

Shaping & Monitoring Models through their Internal Representations

首次提交 2026-11-05 03:29
版本更新 2026-11-05 03:29
雷达观测 2026-11-06 10:04
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

We propose Mechanistic Shaping, a unified framework for shaping models through their internal representations. Mechanistic Shaping is applied during training so that models follow specifications (rules) about which concepts they express, measured via their outputs or internal representations (e.g., no harmful content), and also which concepts they rely on, i.e., what they use to make their decisions (e.g., not a candidate's gender when screening a résumé). Across multiple domains (vision, medical imaging, language), scales (up to 32B parameters), and training paradigms (classification, SFT, DPO, GRPO), we find that Mechanistic Shaping substantially reduces targeted behaviors while preserving task performance. Since training against a representation can also modify it, we ask whether shaped concepts remain monitorable, a question that depends on the class of monitors considered. We therefore introduce a hierarchy of such classes, which separates a concept that escapes one probe from a concept that is truly gone. We characterize three geometric mechanisms of circumvention: the concept can drift away from the monitor, be erased from the layer, or persist in higher-order statistics as a nonlinear encoding, which we explain through a product-code construction. Although other mechanisms may arise in different settings or at larger scales, these three account for all of our observations, and each can be detected by a matching monitor. In practice, we find that shaped concepts largely remain monitorable: refitted linear probes recover the concept in most settings, and the original probe remains reliable whenever gradients do not flow through it. Taken together, these results point to the potential of using interpretability as a tool for training, and call for a correspondingly rigorous science of interpretability-based training.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-05 03:29 · 最新观测版本

Shaping & Monitoring Models through their Internal Representations

We propose Mechanistic Shaping, a unified framework for shaping models through their internal representations. Mechanistic Shaping is applied during training so that models follow specifications (rules) about which concepts they express, measured via their outputs or internal representations (e.g., no harmful content), and also which concepts they rely on, i.e., what they use to make their decisions (e.g., not a candidate's gender when screening a résumé). Across multiple domains (vision, medical imaging, language), scales (up to 32B parameters), and training paradigms (classification, SFT, DPO, GRPO), we find that Mechanistic Shaping substantially reduces targeted behaviors while preserving task performance. Since training against a representation can also modify it, we ask whether shaped concepts remain monitorable, a question that depends on the class of monitors considered. We therefore introduce a hierarchy of such classes, which separates a concept that escapes one probe from a concept that is truly gone. We characterize three geometric mechanisms of circumvention: the concept can drift away from the monitor, be erased from the layer, or persist in higher-order statistics as a nonlinear encoding, which we explain through a product-code construction. Although other mechanisms may arise in different settings or at larger scales, these three account for all of our observations, and each can be detected by a matching monitor. In practice, we find that shaped concepts largely remain monitorable: refitted linear probes recover the concept in most settings, and the original probe remains reliable whenever gradients do not flow through it. Taken together, these results point to the potential of using interpretability as a tool for training, and call for a correspondingly rigorous science of interpretability-based training.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗