Activation Steering via Generative Causal Mediation

Aruna Sankaranarayanan, Amir Zur, Atticus Geiger, Dylan Hadfield-Menell · Feb 17, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Coverage: Recent

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. If the signals below are thin, treat it as background context and compare it against the stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Paper metadata checked

Apr 1, 2026, 2:27 PM

Recent

Protocol signals checked

Apr 1, 2026, 2:27 PM

Recent

Signal strength

Low

Model confidence 0.15

Abstract

Where should we intervene in a language model (LM) to localize and control behaviors that are diffused across many tokens of a long-form response? We introduce Generative Causal Mediation (GCM), a procedure for selecting model components (e.g., attention heads) from contrastive long-form responses, to steer such diffuse concepts (e.g., talk in verse vs. talk in prose). In GCM, we first construct a dataset of contrasting behavioral inputs and long-form responses. Then, we quantify how model components mediate the concept and select the strongest mediators for steering. We evaluate GCM on three behaviors--refusal, sycophancy, and style transfer--across three language models. GCM successfully localizes concepts expressed in long-form responses and outperforms correlational probe-based baselines when steering with a sparse set of attention heads. Together, these results demonstrate that GCM provides an effective approach for localizing from and controlling the long-form responses of LMs.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Reliably Extract

Each protocol field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.