# State Transfer Reveals Reuse in Controlled Routing

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.18158 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.18158/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 3 of its 5 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.00190/) (2021)
- [The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08691/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Prompt-based interventions can change model behavior, but trained success alone does not identify where the behaviorally relevant state is represented. We study this question in controlled routing tasks using interfaces chosen on support data, held-out query evaluation, and matched necessity, sufficiency, and wrong-interface controls. On GPT-2 triop, an early interface supports exact transfer under these tests. On GPT-2 add/sub, zero-retrain compiled transfer at the fixed interface recovers most of donor routing accuracy, while trainable prompt slots can relearn the same behavior at several other positions only after additional support examples and optimization. These results distinguish fixed-interface reuse from prompt relocation in a setting where the two can be tested directly. Qwen routing provides a cross-architecture consistency check for the same matched-interface pattern at the operator token, although donor-specific identity on the local V-path remains unresolved. Generation and reasoning branches are used to map scope: they show broader transport or weaker controller identifiability once control depends on longer trajectories or harder selection. In controlled routing, fixed-interface transfer is therefore stronger evidence of reuse than trained prompt success alone.