Neural representations carry rich geometric structure; but does that structure causally shape behavior? To address this question, we intervene along paths through activation space defined by different geometries, and measure the behavioral trajectories they induce. In particular, we test whether interventions that respect the geometry of activation space will yield behaviors close to those the model exhibits naturally. Concretely, we first fit an activation manifold Mh to representations and a behavior manifold My to output probability distributions. We then test the link Mh↔My via interventions: we find that steering along Mh, which we term manifold steering, yields behavioral trajectories that follow My, while linear steering -- which assumes a Euclidean geometry -- cuts through off-manifold regions and hence produces unnatural outputs. Moreover, optimizing interventions in activation space to produce paths along My recovers activation trajectories that trace the curvature of Mh. We demonstrate this bidirectional relationship between the geometry of representation and behavior across tasks and modalities. In language models, we use reasoning tasks with cyclic and sequential geometries as well as in-context learning tasks with more complex graph geometries. In a video world model, we use a task with geometry corresponding to physical dynamics. Overall, our work shows that geometry in neural representation is not merely incidental, but is in fact the proper object for enabling principled control via intervention on internals. This recasts the core problem of steering from finding the right direction to finding the right geometry.
Steering a language model - intervening on its internal activations to change downstream behaviour - has recently expanded beyond linear interpolation to nonlinear methods such as angular and kernelized steering, which define intervention transformations without learning an explicit geometry over paths in activation space. Freshly introduced geometry-aware manifold methods do learn such a geometry, but require labelled class centroids together with prescribed cyclic or sequential structure. These assumptions restrict where manifold steering can be applied, since existing constructions require labelled centroids and compatible boundary conditions. We recast manifold steering more broadly as \textbf{Riemannian geodesic computation} on activation space, recovering linear and labelled-spline steering as geodesics under particular choices of metric. A principled metric within this framework is the output-space Hellinger distance pulled back to activations; we approximate this with a learned encoder trained on output distances over a small concept-token schema - no per-prompt labels, no topology prior, and no per-task curve fitting. Empirically, the method reliably drives the model onto the target class across all tasks in a standard four-task language-model arithmetic benchmark, while following more behaviourally natural trajectories than baselines on smaller output spaces. We thereby provide a unified Riemannian framework for manifold steering together with a schema-supervised, label-free instantiation that operates without labelled centroids or prescribed boundary conditions.
Post-training can substantially alter language-model behavior, yet aggregate behavior rates do not reveal whether training removes an existing mechanism, creates a new one, or changes how an inherited mechanism is used. We study this question through two mechanistically distinct failures, repetition as a decoding-attractor pathology and sycophancy as a preference-related alignment failure. We introduce behavioral manifold analysis, which isolates behavior-specific geometry by selecting sparse behavior-associated coordinates and lifting them into low-dimensional local charts. We construct these charts in two complementary spaces. ACT captures runtime activation states, while NOC quantifies how strongly the model routes functional information flow through the shared behavior-associated subspace. Across multiple model families, the resulting charts are highly compressed and partially alignable across architectures. Contribution-space charts expose a more architecture-robust shared core, whereas activation-space charts retain stronger family-specific structure. Tracking these charts through controlled post-training reveals a consistent asymmetry. Supervised fine-tuning substantially alters the inherited behavioral geometry, whereas reward optimization changes behavior while largely preserving the underlying chart. This geometric perspective provides a unified framework for understanding the mechanistic distinction between the two objectives. SFT tends to rewrite behavioral geometry, whereas reward optimization primarily reweights it. Code is available at https://github.com/ronglingze/Manifold-Analysis
Linear activation steering has gained popularity as a simple and empirically effective way to control language model behavior. More recently, spherical steering paradigms have been proposed to address limitations of additive interventions, often motivated by the assumption that hidden-state norm does not carry concept-relevant information. In this work, we revisit this assumption through a controlled empirical study designed to disentangle the roles of angular and radial components. We show that steering methods differ mainly in how they couple two geometric effects: changing a token's angular alignment with a concept direction and changing its hidden-state norm. Across seven language models, we find that concepts are represented primarily in angular structure, supporting the motivation for spherical methods, but that norm remains important for the stability and downstream effects of steering. Our results explain why interventions with similar concept-level effects can behave differently, and suggest that activation steering should be parameterized by interpretable angular and radial components of the intervention, rather than by a single additive coefficient that entangles these two effects.