MEGA Hub

How Does Alignment Tuning Shape Representations of Sycophancy and Related Cue-Induced Biases in LLMs?

Authors

Do you know Prakhar Gupta?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Terry Jingchen Zhang?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Florent Draye?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Bernhard Schölkopf?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Zhijing Jin?You can claim authorship or link another user.

Abstract

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.

Community

00