analiza aiqbench
This research introduces behavioral manifold analysis, offering a geometric framework to distinguish between supervised fine-tuning's tendency to rewrite model behavior versus reward optimization's role in reweighting existing mechanisms. By isolating specific activation states and information flow routes across different architectures, the study clarifies how post-training methods fundamentally alter or preserve underlying neural structures without relying on aggregate performance metrics.
Rewriting or Reweighting? A Geometric Account in Language Models
arXiv:2608.01835v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-training can substantially alter language-model behavior, yet aggregate behavior rates do not reveal whether training removes an existing mechanism, creates a new one, or changes how an inherited mechanism is used. We study this question through two mechanistically distinct failures, repetition as a decoding-attractor pathology and sycophancy as a preference-related alignment failure. We introduce behavioral manifold analysis, which isolates behavior-specific geometry by selecting sparse behavior-associated coordinates and lifting them into low-dimensional local charts. We construct these charts in two complementary spaces. ACT captures runtime activation states, while NOC quantifies how strongly the model routes functional information flow through the shared behavior-associated subspace. Across multiple model families, the resulting charts are highly compressed and partially alignable across architectures. Contribution-space charts expose a more architecture-robust shared core, whereas activation-space charts retain stronger family-specific structure. Tracking these charts through controlled post-training reveals a consistent asymmetry. Supervised fine-tuning substantially alters the inherited behavioral geometry, whereas reward optimization changes behavior while largely preserving the underlying chart. This geometric perspective provides a unified framework for understanding the mechanistic distinction between the two objectives. SFT tends to rewrite behavioral geometry, whereas reward optimization primarily reweights it. Code is available at https://github.com/ronglingze/Manifold-Analysis
Title:Rewriting or Reweighting? A Geometric Account in Language Models
Abstract:Post-training can substantially alter language-model behavior, yet aggregate behavior rates do not reveal whether training removes an existing mechanism, creates a new one, or changes how an inherited mechanism is used. We study this question through two mechanistically distinct failures, repetition as a decoding-attractor pathology and sycophancy as a preference-related alignment failure. We introduce behavioral manifold analysis, which isolates behavior-specific geometry by selecting sparse behavior-associated coordinates and lifting them into low-dimensional local charts. We construct these charts in two complementary spaces. ACT captures runtime activation states, while NOC quantifies how strongly the model routes functional information flow through the shared behavior-associated subspace. Across multiple model families, the resulting charts are highly compressed and partially alignable across architectures. Contribution-space charts expose a more architecture-robust shared core, whereas activation-space charts retain stronger family-specific structure. Tracking these charts through controlled post-training reveals a consistent asymmetry. Supervised fine-tuning substantially alters the inherited behavioral geometry, whereas reward optimization changes behavior while largely preserving the underlying chart. This geometric perspective provides a unified framework for understanding the mechanistic distinction between the two objectives. SFT tends to rewrite behavioral geometry, whereas reward optimization primarily reweights it. Code is available at this https URL
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.01835 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.01835v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.01835 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 299 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · 30 iul. 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026

Scaling Indic Pretraining: 2.8 Trillion Tokens and an Open Data Generation Pipeline
Hugging Face · 16 oct. 2026
[AINews] AI Engineer NYC: Gemini 4 Argon, Vals AI Benchmarks
Latent Space · 14 oct. 2026