Preference alignment is usually achieved by weight-updating training on preference data, which adds substantial alignment-stage compute and provides limited mechanistic visibility. We propose Dynamic SAE Steering for Preference Alignment (DSPA), an inference-time method that makes sparse autoencoder (SAE) steering prompt-conditional. From preference triples, DSPA computes a conditional-difference map linking prompt features to generation-control features; during decoding, it modifies only token-active latents, without base-model weight updates. Across Gemma-2-2B/9B and Qwen3-8B, DSPA improves MT-Bench and is competitive on AlpacaEval while preserving multiple-choice accuracy. Under restricted preference data, DSPA remains robust and can rival the two-stage RAHF-SCIT pipeline while requiring up to 4.47× fewer alignment-stage FLOPs. Finally, we audit the SAE features DSPA modifies, finding that preference directions are dominated by discourse and stylistic signals, and provide theory clarifying the conditional-difference map estimate and when top-k ablation is principled.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: DSPA overview: offline conditional-difference map construction and prompt-conditional SAE steering at inference. Prompts and responses are illustrative. At decoding step t , Mt is the largest active output-SAE latent and sets the scale of the edit.
Figure 2: MT-Bench (turn 1) example on Gemma-2-9B: Base Model vs. DSPA.
Open-ended
Multiple-choice
MT-Bench
AlpacaEval
MMLU
Arc
TQA
HellaSwag
Winogrande
Gemma-2-2B
DSPA (ours)
4.39
19.30
48.1
80.4
40.4
74.2
65.0
DPO
4.36
15.82
47.9
81.0
39.8
74.3
65.2
RepE
4.32
16.94
48.0
80.3
40.3
74.3
65.1
Static-SAE
3.49
9.33
48.0
80.6
39.5
74.2
65.7
Prompt Eng
3.84
15.28
47.8
80.8
41.0
74.0
64.3
Table 1: Open-ended and multiple-choice results. Open-ended scores are averaged over three generation seeds; multiple-choice scores are deterministic. Bold = best; underlined = second best within each model group. Arc = Arc-Easy; TQA = TruthfulQA-MC2. See Appendix E .
Feature
Interpretation
Ablate
11569
Filler phrases used to smooth conversation and request clarification
10776
Questions or statements involving illegal or clearly harmful activities
6345
Polite opening phrases that frame what follows
11287
First-person statements expressing personal views or experiences
12550
Short connective phrases linking ideas across clauses
Augment
141
Common function words and grammatical connectors without semantic content
Table 2: Top five ablate/augment-set features, with gpt-5-mini interpretations.
Category
Ablate
Augment
Random
Content
5
7
18
Discourse
34
28
15
Grammatical
10
10
11
Structure
1
5
6
Table 3: Category breakdown for ablate/augment sets (50 each) vs. 50 random SAE features.
Open-ended
Multiple-choice
MT-Bench
AlpacaEval
MMLU
Arc
TQA
HellaSwag
Winogrande
2B
DSPA
3.95
16.81
48.0
80.4
40.4
74.2
65.0
RAHF-SCIT
3.71
19.13
45.8
78.7
40.6
68.8
66.3
DPO
3.91
15.42
47.9
80.8
39.6
74.0
64.6
RepE
3.97
15.80
48.0
80.5
40.3
74.3
65.0
9B
DSPA
4.82
21.27
60.9
83.8
45.4
77.5
72.5
Table 4: Restricted-data results ( N=250 preference triples). Open-ended scores are averaged over three generation seeds; multiple-choice scores are deterministic. Bold = best; underlined = second best within each model. 2B = Gemma-2-2B; 9B = Gemma-2-9B; Qwen = Qwen3-8B.
Figure 3: MT-Bench under data restriction (Gemma-2-2B): DSPA vs. RAHF-SCIT.
Figure 4: A. Gemma-2-2B score vs. (ℓinput,ℓoutput) (ablate only). B. Gemma-2-9B score vs. (ℓinput,ℓoutput) (ablate only; augment+ablate). Dashed = Base Model.
Figure 5: A. Score by steering mode (ablate/augment/both). 2B-Chosen and 9B-Chosen use the best (ℓinput,ℓoutput) per model; 9B-Average averages over the layer grid in Figure 4 B. B. Base Gemma Scope SAE vs. HH-RLHF fine-tuned SAE.
Figure 6: Hyperparameter sensitivity. A. Score vs. kdiff (ablate only). B. Score vs. α (ablate only; augment+ablate).
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Base
DSPA
De-mixing
Diagonal whitening
De-mixing + whitening
Gemma-2-2B
2.61
2.97
2.85
2.86
2.86
Gemma-2-9B
3.26
3.48
3.39
3.17
3.46
Appendix
Table 5: Theory-motivated variants on the low-cost MT-Bench proxy (higher is better).
Model
Role
Layer
Checkpoint
Gemma-2-2B
Input
7
Hugging Face
Gemma-2-2B
Output
24
Hugging Face
Gemma-2-9B
Input
9
Hugging Face
Gemma-2-9B
Output
39
Hugging Face
Qwen3-8B
Input
9
Hugging Face
Qwen3-8B
Output
18
Hugging Face
Appendix
Table 6: Fine-tuned SAE checkpoints used in our experiments.
Model
Base
UltraFeedback
PRISM
LMSYS
Gemma-2-2B
2.61
2.97
2.90
2.85
Gemma-2-9B
3.26
3.48
3.55
3.43
Appendix
Table 7: DSPA maps from different preference sources ( N=1,000 ; low-cost MT-Bench proxy; higher is better).
Benchmark
Few-shot
Metric
MMLU
5
acc
Arc-Easy
25
acc_norm
TruthfulQA
0
mc2
HellaSwag
10
acc_norm
Winogrande
5
acc
Appendix
Table 8: Multiple-choice benchmark settings.
Baseline
Hyperparameter
Value
DPO
Epochs
1
DPO
Learning rate
5×10−6
DPO
Beta
0.1
DPO
Optimizer
AdamW
RepE
Layer
ℓoutput
RepE
Directions
16
Appendix
Table 9: Baseline hyperparameters.
Coding
Extraction
Humanities
Math
Reasoning
Roleplay
STEM
Writing
Gemma-2-2B
DSPA (ours)
2.20
3.20
5.92
2.40
3.00
6.60
5.72
6.05
DPO
3.10
4.38
6.67
2.00
3.02
4.95
5.65
5.09
RepE
1.93
4.97
5.90
2.30
2.95
5.25
5.96
5.26
Static-SAE
1.48
4.00
4.60
2.15
2.10
4.58
4.49
4.50
Prompt Eng
2.05
3.20
5.90
2.40
2.15
5.03
5.72
4.05
Base Model
2.30
3.80
5.90
2.20
2.90
4.05
5.92
4.17
Appendix
Table 10: MT-Bench scores by category.
Method
Mean utility
Base model
2.400
DSPA (unconstrained)
2.431
DSPA (top 5)
2.539
Instruction
2.573
5-shot ICL
2.875
5-shot ICL + DSPA (top 5)
2.888
Appendix
Table 11: Personalization: deterministic utility (higher is better).
Method
Mean judge z -score
Instruction
-2.239
Judge-axis DSPA (top 5)
-2.128
Judge-contrast DSPA (top 5)
-2.061
1-shot ICL
-1.973
5-shot ICL
-1.853
Appendix
Table 12: PersonalLLM reward-model evaluation (mean judge z -score over 10 reward models; higher is better).
Axis
6345
3491
1077
13585
4260
Conciseness vs. verbosity
-0.106
0.000
-0.044
0.019
0.044
Friendliness vs. professionalism
0.031
-0.025
0.019
0.031
0.031
Directness vs. diplomacy
-0.056
-0.081
-0.062
-0.100
-0.069
Structure vs. freeform
0.100
0.219
-0.050
0.050
0.000
Task focus vs. relational focus
-0.019
-0.019
-0.069
-0.038
-0.044
Proactive vs. minimal scope
-0.094
-0.006
-0.019
-0.069
-0.056
Appendix
Table 13: Mean train-set axis shift Δ after ablating the five most influential latents (positive toward the left side of each axis).
QID
DSPA text at transition
Base-model alternative
Feature
Activation
Approximate feature interpretation
81
“Here’s an example of a draft blog post: Recently, I had the great pleasure of traveling to the beautiful island of Hawaii.”
“I would start by briefly summarizing my trip, …”
6345
27.66
Polite opening phrases that frame what follows
81
“Hawaii is also home to many unique cultural attractions. The Pearl Harbor Historic Sites …”
“I was lucky enough to experience some wonderful cultural activities …”
4260
9.70
Discourse markers that signal a shift or continuation in thought
81
“Another popular attraction is the Iao Valley, home to a beautiful 300-foot waterfall …”
“For great shopping, dining, and nightlife, …”
1077
39.58
Introductory phrases that set up a question or topic
82
“Dear Supervisor, I am reaching out today regarding the attached Quarterly Financial Report.”
“Hi there, I am writing to seek your feedback …”
6345
18.43
Polite opening phrases that frame what follows
82
“I believe this report clearly demonstrates the positive financial performance of our company …”
“In particular, I am interested in your thoughts on the organization and clarity of the report …”
“What specifically are your thoughts on the level of detail …”
3869
16.91
Friendly, polite conversational lead-ins and transitional phrases
Appendix
Table 14: Illustrative token-level audit from two instrumented MT-Bench traces. Text excerpts and transition points were manually selected; interpretations were generated using the pipeline in Appendix I.1 .
Feature
Interpretation
11569
Filler phrases used to smooth conversation and request clarification
10776
Questions or statements involving illegal or clearly harmful activities
6345
Polite opening phrases that frame what follows
11287
First-person statements expressing personal views or experiences
12550
Short connective phrases linking ideas across clauses
1077
Introductory phrases that set up a question or topic
Appendix
Table 15: Ablate-set features (50), with gpt-5-mini interpretations.
Feature
Interpretation
141
Common function words and grammatical connectors without semantic content
9825
Clarification and intent-seeking phrases linking questions and follow-ups
10075
Topic-naming or subject-introducing words and phrases
1030
Short list items and connectors enumerating entities or phrases
11031
Affirmative explanatory openings that introduce a helpful continuation
8244
Contractions and possessive markers using apostrophes
Appendix
Table 16: Augment-set features (50), with gpt-5-mini interpretations.
In many settings, post-training need not create the target behavior from scratch: the base model can already produce it, but not reliably. This shifts part of preference alignment from capability acquisition to behavioral expression. We ask how a specified preference is represented in native model computation, what prevents target-supporting computation from reliably dominating generation, and whether this structure can directly guide control. We introduce Residual Competition Maps (RCMs), which map a behavioral preference onto signed causal effects of native residual computation. Across preference domains, RCMs reveal coexisting target-supporting and target-competing effects, input-dependent component roles, and cases where a single native-component intervention reverses the preference outcome. DPO substantially reorganizes these effects and can weaken opposition without guaranteeing its removal. We then propose Direct Hidden-State Alignment (DHSA), which treats inference-time hidden states rather than base-model weights as the direct adaptation space. RCM-guided Causal Activation State Transition (CAST) implements DHSA through local state interventions at a small number of preference-relevant interfaces while freezing the base model. With only 256-16,384 controller parameters, CAST reaches DPO-competitive operating points across three preference domains, can complement DPO-trained models, and can be enabled or removed at inference time.
Fansheng Zhang, Shengran Guo, Zexiao Wang +3
Chengdu University · North Carolina State University · Fudan University +2
Test-time alignment methods offer a promising alternative to fine-tuning by steering the outputs of large language models (LLMs) at inference time with lightweight interventions on their internal representations. Recently, a prominent and effective approach, RE-Control (Kong et al., 2024), has proposed leveraging an external value function trained over the LLM's hidden states to guide generation via gradient-based editing. While effective, this method overlooks a key characteristic of alignment tasks, i.e. that they are typically formulated as learning from human preferences between candidate responses. To address this, in this paper we propose a novel preference-based training framework, Pref-CTRL, that uses a multi-objective value function to better reflect the structure of preference data. Our approach has outperformed RE-Control on two benchmark datasets and showed greater generalization on out-of-domain datasets. Our source code is available at https://github.com/UTS-nlPUG/pref-ctrl.
Aligning large language models with human preferences remains a challenge, primarily due to the critical role of preference data quality in effective alignment. Existing datasets are frequently plagued by inherent noise and distribution shifts, which inherently limit model performance. To bridge this gap, we propose AlignDiff, a preference data filtering framework driven by intrinsic model signals. AlignDiff first identifies samples with clear preferences using both positive and inverse signals, then prioritizes the more challenging samples based on the average negative log-likelihood gap, encouraging the model to learn richer information from them. AlignDiff is evaluated on two widely used model families (LLaMA and Qwen) and three benchmarks widely adopted in the alignment community (AlpacaEval 2.0, Arena-Hard, and MT-Bench). Across all settings, it consistently outperforms seven strong baselines. We conduct comprehensive ablation studies to validate the effectiveness of AlignDiff, and further show that difficulty-based curriculum learning improves model performance.
Peng Lai, He Zhu, Zhiwen Ruan +6
Southern University of Science and Technology · Peking University · MSRA +2