Activation Steering for Aligned Open-ended Generation without Sacrificing Coherence

Alignment in LLMs is more brittle than commonly assumed: misalignment can be triggered by adversarial prompts, benign fine-tuning, emergent misalignment, and goal misgeneralization. Recent evidence suggests that some misalignment behaviors are encoded as linear structure in activation space, making it tractable via steering, while safety alignment has been shown to govern the first few output tokens primarily, leaving subsequent generation unguarded. These findings motivate activation steering as a lightweight runtime defense that continuously corrects misaligned activations throughout generation. We evaluate three methods: Steer-With-Fixed-Coeff (SwFC), which applies uniform additive steering, and two novel projection-aware methods, Steer-to-Target-Projection (StTP) and Steer-to-Mirror-Projection (StMP), that use a logistic regression decision boundary to selectively intervene only on tokens whose activations fall below distributional thresholds. Using malicious system prompts as a controlled proxy for misalignment, we evaluate under two threat models (dishonesty and dismissiveness) and two architectures (Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct, Qwen3-32B). All methods substantially recover target traits (honesty and compassion) while preserving coherence. StTP and StMP better maintain general capabilities (MMLU, MT-Bench, AlpacaEval) and produce less repetition in multi-turn conversations.

Persistent Instability in LLM's Personality Measurements: Effects of Scale, Reasoning, and Conversation History

Large language models require consistent behavioral patterns for safe deployment, yet their personality-like traits remain poorly understood. We present PERSIST (PERsonality Stability in Synthetic Text), a comprehensive evaluation framework testing 25+ open-source models (1B-671B parameters) across 500,000+ responses. Using traditional (BFI-44, SD3) and novel LLM-adapted personality instruments, we systematically vary question order, paraphrasing, personas, and reasoning modes. Our findings challenge fundamental deployment assumptions: (1) Even 400B+ models exhibit substantial response variability (SD > 0.4); (2) Minor prompt reordering alone shifts personality measurements by up to 20%; (3) Interventions expected to stabilize behavior, such as chain-of-thought reasoning, detailed personas instruction, inclusion of conversation history, can paradoxically increase variability; (4) LLM-adapted instruments show equal instability to human-centric versions, confirming architectural rather than translational limitations. This persistent instability across scales and mitigation strategies suggests current LLMs lack the foundations for genuine behavioral consistency. For safety-critical applications requiring predictable behavior, these findings indicate that personality-based alignment strategies may be fundamentally inadequate.