The Geometric Canary: Predicting Steerability and Detecting Drift via Representational Stability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Reliable deployment of language models requires two capabilities that appear distinct but share a common geometric foundation: predicting whether a model will accept targeted behavioral control, and detecting when its internal structure degrades. We show that geometric stability, the consistency of a representation's pairwise distance structure, addresses both. Supervised Shesha variants that measure task-aligned geometric stability predict linear steerability with near-perfect accuracy (ρ = 0.89-0.97) across 35-69 embedding models and three NLP tasks, capturing unique variance beyond class separability (partial ρ = 0.62-0.76). A critical dissociation emerges: unsupervised stability fails entirely for steering on real-world tasks (ρ ≈ 0.10), revealing that task alignment is essential for controllability prediction. However, unsupervised stability excels at drift detection, measuring nearly 2× greater geometric change than CKA during post-training alignment (up to 5.23× in Llama) while providing earlier warning in 73% of models and maintaining a 6× lower false alarm rate than Procrustes. Together, supervised and unsupervised stability form complementary diagnostics for the LLM deployment lifecycle: one for pre-deployment controllability assessment, the other for post-deployment monitoring.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Apr 2026.
Builds on
25 of 36 references.
References · 25
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
- 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,665
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,609
- 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,695
- 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,259
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,239
- 2019Adversarial Examples Are Not Bugs, They Are Featurescited by 950
- 2022Fine-Tuning can Distort Pretrained Features and Underperform Out-of-Distributioncited by 722
- 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 679
- 2020Intrinsic Dimensionality Explains the Effectiveness of Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 658
- 2018Insights on representational similarity in neural networks with canonical correlationcited by 318
13 more
- 2019Intrinsic dimension of data representations in deep neural networkscited by 276
- 2020Do Wide and Deep Networks Learn the Same Things? Uncovering How Neural Network Representations Vary with Width and Depthcited by 241
- 2022Extracting Latent Steering Vectors from Pretrained Language Modelscited by 217
- 2021Revisiting Model Stitching to Compare Neural Representationscited by 203
- 2023Finding Alignments Between Interpretable Causal Variables and Distributed Neural Representationscited by 197
- 2024The Geometry of Categorical and Hierarchical Concepts in Large Language Modelscited by 151
- 2023Inspecting and Editing Knowledge Representations in Language Modelscited by 140
- 2020Topology of deep neural networkscited by 111
- 2024No Representation, No Trust: Connecting Representation, Collapse, and Trust Issues in PPOcited by 27
- 2018Procrustes Metrics on Covariance Operators and Optimal Transportation of Gaussian Processescited by 19
- 2025On the Predictive Power of Representation Dispersion in Language Modelscited by 6
- 2026The Geometry of Alignment Collapse: When Fine-Tuning Breaks Safetycited by 4
- 2026Geometric Stability: The Missing Axis of Representationscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.