Large language models that require multiple GPU cards to host are usually the most capable models. It is necessary to understand and steer these models, but the current technologies do not support the interpretability and steering of these models in the multi-GPU setting as well as the single-GPU setting. We present a practical implementation of activation-level interpretability (logit lens) and steering (steering vector) that scales up to multi-GPU language models. Our system implements design choices that reduce the activation memory by up to 7x and increase the throughput by up to 41x compared to a baseline on identical hardware. We demonstrate the method across LLaMA-3.1 (8B, 70B) and Qwen-3 (4B, 14B, 32B), sustaining 20-100 tokens/s while collecting full layer-wise activation trajectories for sequences of 1,500 tokens. Using label-position steering vectors injected post-LayerNorm, we show controllable, monotonic shifts in model outputs with a mean steerability slope of 0.702 across evaluated datasets, without fine-tuning or additional forward passes. We release detailed benchmarks, ablations, and a reproducible instrumentation recipe to enable practical interpretability and real-time behavioral control for frontier LLMs at https://github.com/Devdesai1901/LogitLense.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Distributed single-pass logit-lens architecture. Selected transformer layers are instrumented with lightweight wrappers that expose post-attention activations under tensor-parallel execution. Hidden states for the most recent token are recorded during a single KV-cached forward pass. After generation, all captured activations are decoded in batch via the final normalization layer and shared LM head, enabling scalable per-token, per-layer analysis without additional forward passes.
Tokens
LL4L–TPtime (s)
SP–TPtime (s)
Speedup ( × )
Baseline tok/s
Ours tok/s
100
166.0 4.8
4.0 0.3
41.5
0.60 0.02
25.0 1.8
300
498.0 11.2
15.0 0.9
33.2
0.60 0.01
20.0 1.2
500
833.0 19.5
20.0 1.1
41.7
0.60 0.01
25.0 1.4
Table 1: Baseline (LL4L–TP) vs. our method (SP–TP) logit-lens runtime comparison on LLaMA-3.1–8B. Wall-clock time and throughput are reported as mean ± std over N=3 runs. Speedup is computed as the ratio of (LL4L–TP) time to (SP–TP) time. Both methods use identical multi-GPU tensor-parallel inference (4 × RTX A6000, bfloat16). The baseline performs per-layer re-forwarding, while ours method uses single-pass capture with deferred batched projection.
Figure 2: Logit lens heatmap for the token “university” across all 80 layers of the LLaMA 3.1–70B model. For each layer, three types of activations are visualized attention , MLP , and block output representing the intermediate computations captured after the post-LayerNorm stage. Each layer displays the model’s top- k=3 most probable tokens, and the color shade indicates their probability: darker shades correspond to higher token probabilities within that layer. Due to space constraints, only the first three and last three layers are shown here. Some cells display non-English or alphanumeric characters (e.g., “\u06\u0644”), which occur when the model emits tokens from other scripts or symbols not supported by the visualization font.
Figure 3: Steering-vector propensity analysis on LLaMA 3.1–70B. Mean propensity vs. steering multiplier α for selected layers. Steerability peaks at mid layer ( L=35 ) and is weaker at early layers ( L=25 ), consistent with directional sensitivity patterns reported by Tan et al. (2024) .
Model
Params
Mean tok/s
Std
LLaMA-3.1–8B
8B
23.3
2.6
LLaMA-3.1–70B
70B
21.0
1.2
Qwen3–4B
4B
28.5
1.9
Qwen3–14B
14B
21.2
1.4
Qwen3–32B
32B
17.0
1.1
Table 2: Cross-model throughput summary. comparison of average decoding throughput for SP–TP. Mean tok/s is aggregated across the token budgets used for each model; Std is across runs ( N=3 ). (Replace dummy values with measured results.)
Model
Params
Tokens
Time (s) (mean ± std, N=3)
tok/s (mean ± std)
LLaMA-3.1–8B
8B
100
4.0 ± 0.3
25.0 ± 1.8
LLaMA-3.1–8B
8B
300
15.0 ± 0.9
20.0 ± 1.2
LLaMA-3.1–8B
8B
500
20.0 ± 1.1
25.0 ± 1.4
LLaMA-3.1–70B
70B
500
25.0 ± 1.5
20.0 ± 1.1
LLaMA-3.1–70B
70B
1500
61.3 ± 3.8
20.0 ± 1.0
LLaMA-3.1–70B
70B
2500
125.0 ± 6.2
20.0 ± 1.0
Table 3: Runtime scaling across models. Wall-clock time and throughput for SP–TP over varying token budgets. Reported values are mean ± std over N=3 runs on identical hardware (4 × RTX A6000).
Model
Layer
Mean slope
p -value
LLaMA-3.1–8B
35
0.68
0.004
LLaMA-3.1–8B
62
0.07
0.180
LLaMA-3.1–70B
35
0.72
0.002
Qwen3–14B
35
0.55
0.011
Qwen3–32B
35
0.49
0.019
Table 4: Steering statistics for each (model, dataset, layer), we fit a per-prompt linear regression of the steering metric versus multiplier m∈[−1.5,1.5] , then report the mean slope ± std across prompts. The p -value is computed via a paired test comparing the metric at m=−1.5 vs. m=+1.5 .
Large language model (LLM) interpretability studies how internal representations and computations produce outputs, and how they can be explained or controlled.
Interpretability is often treated as a tax on capability: language models are trained as opaque systems, then explained after the fact, with methods whose reliability is difficult to establish. In this work, we challenge this premise. Rather than reverse-engineering a model, we make interpretability a constraint of the training pipeline, optimized alongside the language modeling objective. Across three orders of magnitude of compute, on both autoregressive and diffusion language models, interpretability scales with capability rather than against it. Surprisingly, model representations become more disentangled and aligned with human-understandable concepts with scale. We instantiate the training-time recipe with Steerling-8B, a diffusion language model with a causal attention mask. For any group of generated tokens, Steerling-8B attributes the output to relevant input tokens, human-understandable concepts, and training data. This enables closed-loop intervention: diagnose an output through its concept or feature attribution, retrieve similar training data, and correct the behavior through concept steering without retraining. Steerling-8B remains competitive with open peer models trained on substantially 2-16x more compute, suggesting a different scaling paradigm: interpretability can be designed into training, and it improves with scale.
Guide Labs Team, Andreas Madsen, Aya Abdelsalam Ismail +7
Safe deployment of increasingly capable models will likely come to rely on latent-space monitoring as a complement to behavioral evaluations, especially when evaluation-aware models exhibit scheming or deception. However, if models can also control their own activations, deception could extend into the latent space itself. With this in mind, we introduce the Activation Controllability Benchmark to quantify the extent to which models can modulate their residual stream via natural-language instruction. Across model families and capability levels, we find that most LLMs can control the direction and magnitude of their residual stream activations with some degree of temporal resolution, though performance varies considerably across models. In simple tasks, this level of control can evade activation-based monitoring methods (including linear probes, natural language autoencoders, activation oracles, and the Jacobian lens), albeit imperfectly. These results suggest that control over the activation space itself could become a confound for monitoring as introspective capabilities increase; therefore, we recommend that frontier labs and evaluators track activation controllability in future models.
Marek Mateusz Kowalski, Joshua Fonseca Rivera, Uzay Macar +1
Activation steering edits the behaviour of a frozen language model by adding a learned vector to its residual stream, and current practice fixes the injection layers globally per task. We argue that the best layers are an instance-level decision, and we make per-instance, multi-layer selection both well understood and deployable. On two open-weight 8B models and six binary persona traits, a per-instance oracle over layer subsets shows that the best layers vary from one input to the next: on most trait-model pairs, no fixed global layer set recovers the per-instance benefit. A greedy rule that ranks layers by single-layer marginal effect recovers nearly all of the oracle's benefit, but both must score candidate layers against the gold answer, so neither can run at deployment; the rule instead becomes the target a prompt-only predictor is trained to reproduce. Our deployable recipe needs no label at inference: a per-instance layer ranker read off the prompt embedding, a classifier that infers the steering direction, and an adaptive gate that scores short steered passes against that inferred direction and steers no more layers than necessary. The recipe recovers most of the oracle's lift (the bulk on the stronger model, a clear majority on the harder one), never drives any trait-model pair below its unsteered alignment baseline on average, and largely avoids the fluency collapse that strong global selection incurs at higher layer counts. A mechanistic account, "direction over magnitude", explains the behavioural flip under a mis-directed global set, the output collapse from steering too many layers, and the ceiling of unsteerable inputs.
Muhammad Faishal Adly Nelwan, Alfan Farizki Wicaksono