aiqbench analysis
This research reveals that instruction-tuned LLMs employ distinct internal mechanisms to resolve conflicts between system and user instructions, splitting into hierarchy-respecting, anti-hierarchy, and no-effect regimes. Crucially, the study demonstrates that even in models exhibiting strong user-preferring behavior like Llama-3.1-8B, these arbitration decisions remain linearly decodable from residual-stream activations, enabling targeted steering interventions. The findings highlight that successful control depends on the geometric properties of the readout rather than probe accuracy alone, offering new pathways for aligning model behavior with safety constraints.
How Language Models Choose Sides: Internal Representations of Instruction Hierarchy
arXiv:2608.28648v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study how instruction-tuned LLMs arbitrate direct conflicts between system and user instructions. We introduce a benchmark of 41 paired constraints with deterministic verifiers and evaluate eight models under matched baseline, conflict, and same-channel control conditions. Behaviourally, the models split into three regimes by System Authority Delta: hierarchy-respecting models use the system channel as an authority signal, anti-hierarchy models follow the system less often than their same-channel baseline predicts, and no-effect models show little channel sensitivity. Llama-3.1-8B is the strongest anti-hierarchy case in our suite, following the system in only 0.10 of conflict trials. We use this behavioural failure case to ask whether user-preferring arbitration reflects the absence of an internal conflictresolution signal. It does not: on Llama-3.1-8B, the conflict outcome is linearly decodable from residual-stream activations at 0.97 balanced accuracy, 17 percentage points above a metadata-only baseline, with analogous signals on Qwen2.5-7B and gpt-oss-20b. Steering with a layer-12 mean of four per-conflict logistic-regression directions raises genuine system compliance from 0.132 to 0.530, while directions selected mainly for pooled separability steer poorly. User-preferring conflict resolution can therefore coexist with a readable internal arbitration signal, and successful intervention depends on the geometry of the readout rather than probe accuracy alone
Abstract:We study how instruction-tuned LLMs arbitrate direct conflicts between system and user instructions. We introduce a benchmark of 41 paired constraints with deterministic verifiers and evaluate eight models under matched baseline, conflict, and same-channel control conditions. Behaviourally, the models split into three regimes by System Authority Delta: hierarchy-respecting models use the system channel as an authority signal, anti-hierarchy models follow the system less often than their same-channel baseline predicts, and no-effect models show little channel sensitivity. Llama-3.1-8B is the strongest anti-hierarchy case in our suite, following the system in only 0.10 of conflict trials. We use this behavioural failure case to ask whether user-preferring arbitration reflects the absence of an internal conflictresolution signal. It does not: on Llama-3.1-8B, the conflict outcome is linearly decodable from residual-stream activations at 0.97 balanced accuracy, 17 percentage points above a metadata-only baseline, with analogous signals on Qwen2.5-7B and gpt-oss-20b. Steering with a layer-12 mean of four per-conflict logistic-regression directions raises genuine system compliance from 0.132 to 0.530, while directions selected mainly for pooled separability steer poorly. User-preferring conflict resolution can therefore coexist with a readable internal arbitration signal, and successful intervention depends on the geometry of the readout rather than probe accuracy alone
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.28648 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.28648v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.28648 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 300 words
Related coverage
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026
Dyna-2: General Purpose Physical Agents with Hour-Long Autonomy — Jason Ma, Dyna Robotics
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026