mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

ATLAS: Constitution-Conditioned Latent Geometry and Redistribution Across Language Models and Neural Perturbation Data

arXiv 2604.17663 ↗First posted 19 Apr 2026cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Constitution-conditioned post-training can be analysed as a structured perturbation of a model's learned representational geometry. We introduce ATLAS, a geometry-first program that traces constitution-induced hidden-state structure across charts, models, and substrates. Instead of treating the relevant unit as a single behaviour, neuron, vector, or patch, ATLAS tests a local chart whose tangent structure, occupancy distribution, and behavioural coupling can be measured under system change. On Gemma, the anchored source-local chart captures 310 / 320 reviewed source rows and all 84 / 84 reviewed score-flip rows, but compact exact-patch sufficiency does not close, so the exportable unit is the broader source-defined family. Freezing that family, we re-identify a target-local realisation in an unadapted Phi model, where the fully adjudicated confirmatory contrast separates with AUC 0.984 and mean gap 5.50. In held-out ALM8 mouse frontal-cortex perturbation data, the same source-defined family receives support across 5/5 folds, with mean held-out AUC 0.72 and mean fold gap 4.50. A multiple-choice analysis provides the main boundary: nearby target-local signals can appear without source-faithful closure. The resulting correspondence is not coordinate identity, site identity, or a target-side mediation theorem. It is geometric recurrence under redistribution: written constitutions can induce recoverable latent geometry whose organisation remains detectable across model and substrate changes while its local coordinates, occupancy, and behavioural expression shift.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Apr 2026.

Builds on

22 of 35 references.

References · 22

  1. 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,695
  2. 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,259
  3. 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
  4. 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 824
  5. 2024The Platonic Representation Hypothesiscited by 362
  6. 2023Function Vectors in Large Language Modelscited by 292
  7. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 207
  8. 2024AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluationscited by 131
  9. 2024Collective Constitutional AI: Aligning a Language Model with Public Inputcited by 120
  10. 2025Model Organisms for Emergent Misalignmentcited by 84
  11. 2025Thought Crime: Backdoors and Emergent Misalignment in Reasoning Modelscited by 57
  12. 2025Harnessing the Universal Geometry of Embeddingscited by 54
10 more
  1. 2023Specific versus General Principles for Constitutional AIcited by 41
  2. 2025A sketch of an AI control safety casecited by 36
  3. 2025The Hawthorne Effect in Reasoning Models: Evaluating and Steering Test Awarenesscited by 29
  4. 2025How to evaluate control measures for LLM agents? A trajectory from today to superintelligencecited by 20
  5. 2025Transferring Linear Features Across Language Models With Model Stitchingcited by 17
  6. 2026Steering Vector Fields for Context-Aware Inference-Time Control in Large Language Modelscited by 10
  7. 2026On the Non-Identifiability of Steering Vectors in Large Language Modelscited by 8
  8. 2024ABC Align: Large Language Model Alignment for Safety & Accuracycited by 3
  9. 2026Where to Steer: Input-Dependent Layer Selection for Steering Improves LLM Alignmentcited by 3
  10. 2025ENIGMA: The Geometry of Reasoning and Alignment in Large-Language Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.