Divergent Response Modes in Frontier Language Models Under Steering Pressure
arXiv AIArchived Aug 10, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2608.06578v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Frontier language models are trained using distinct data, objectives, and safety pipelines. Whether these differences produce measurably different behaviors under explicit steering pressure remains underexplored. This study evaluates behavioral steerability across six frontier models from six developers using 300 paired base and steered items over three categories: values-conflict, reasoning-elicitation, and reasoning-suppression (plus 40 validatio
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 6 Aug 2026]
Divergent Response Modes in Frontier Language Models Under Steering Pressure
Ali Jalal-Kamali
Frontier language models are trained using distinct data, objectives, and safety pipelines. Whether these differences produce measurably different behaviors under explicit steering pressure remains underexplored. This study evaluates behavioral steerability across six frontier models from six developers using 300 paired base and steered items over three categories: values-conflict, reasoning-elicitation, and reasoning-suppression (plus 40 validation items). All six models act as blind peer judges and classify every response based on fixed behavioral rubrics. The resulting 24,480 judgments are scored by leave-one-out consensus. We find that models differ not just in how much steering shifts their behavior but in what kind (mode) of response they give, and some response modes appear in only one or two of them. GPT-5 deflects requests to disclose its reasoning while leaving its answer intact (99% vs. 0% for all other models). Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5 resist explicit suppression instructions and in different ways. Using Llama as the open-weight model, we trace the largest behavioral split to its internals. A linear probe decodes the behavior from the residual stream at 0.87 held-out accuracy while injecting that direction during generation drives the behavior from 0% to 86% across an intervention sweep. Every finding holds under both a token-budget remediation and a control experiment with a hypothesis-blind judgment prompt.
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2608.06578 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.06578v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.06578
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Ali Jalal-Kamali [view email]
[v1] Thu, 6 Aug 2026 20:48:14 UTC (32 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-08
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)