Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the inconsistent responses of large language models to multiple-choice questions framed in support-oriented versus elimination-oriented contexts. By employing a dual-framing protocol and introducing a special token, [STATE], the authors reveal that different internal representations are activated by these framings, leading to distinct predictions. The findings demonstrate that swapping activations between these framings can systematically alter model outputs and enhance agreement, highlighting the behavioral relevance of these hidden states.
Swapping internal activations can dramatically improve agreement in model predictions across different question framings.
Large language models often answer the same multiple-choice question inconsistently when it is posed under support-oriented and elimination-oriented framings. We investigate whether these discrepancies arise from different internal representations induced by the two framings. We introduce a dual-framing protocol with minimally varied prompts that use either support- or elimination-oriented framing while keeping the evaluation target fixed. To probe the internal computation, we append an untrained special token, [STATE], and treat its residual-stream activation as an intervention interface. Across both models, the two framings induce separable [STATE] activations concentrated in intermediate layers. Swapping these activations between paired prompts systematically changes predictions and improves cross-framing agreement, providing intervention-based evidence that the activations are behaviorally relevant. Beyond instance-level substitution, mean-difference steering directions derived from the dual-framing contrast exhibit more bounded layer-wise responses than matched contrastive activation addition directions under the evaluated protocol.