Activation steering has shown promise for controlling LLM generation along well-defined attributes, but it remains unclear whether it can handle the multidimensional and hard-to-define nature of authorship style. We ask whether structured contrastive prompting along rhetorically-motivated dimensions can construct rich style representations directly in activation space, bypassing the need for natural language style descriptors or dedicated training. We find that the resulting directions share a common authorship backbone while conflicting on aspect-specific residuals that carry genuine stylistic signal, explaining why naive aggregation fails. We operationalize this in Aspect-Aware Activation Steering (A3S), a training-free framework that merges per-aspect contrastive directions with interference-aware aggregation and tunes steering strength per instance. A3S improves authorship style transfer where it is genuinely multi-aspect, outperforms a trained baseline in preference evaluations on out-of-domain benchmarks, and keeps target-exemplar overlap consistently low.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed Aspect-Aware Activation Steering ( A3S ) framework. A3S decomposes the target exemplar into distinct rhetorical dimensions (e.g., Tone, Structure) via contrastive generation. These aspect vectors are synthesized using PCB-Merging to resolve interference, and injected with an intensity α∗ dynamically tuned by Hybrid Adaptive Search.
LUAR ↑
StyleCAV ↑
StyleDistance ↑
SBERT ↑
ROUGE-L ↓
Length
Method
Llama
Qwen
Llama
Qwen
Llama
Qwen
Llama
Qwen
Llama
Qwen
Llama
Qwen
MUD (Reddit)
Simple
0.849
0.770
0.833
0.737
0.937
0.894
0.293
0.607
0.591
0.411
23.45
14.26
STYLL
0.636
0.651
0.545
0.527
0.852
0.835
0.541
0.699
0.092
0.084
11.93
13.01
RG
0.634
0.653
0.583
0.533
0.856
0.837
0.635
0.796
0.080
0.074
10.24
25.56
Aspect Prompt
0.654
0.653
0.558
0.478
0.850
0.826
0.597
0.662
0.111
0.113
13.70
17.30
Table 1: Results on three authorship-transfer benchmarks, with separate Llama and Qwen subcolumns. ROUGE-L measures target-exemplar overlap, and Length is the character-length ratio. Bold / underline mark the best/second-best reported values per dataset; Simple is grayed because its high overlap indicates copying. † TinyStyler uses its own model and is conditioned on CAV embeddings, potentially favoring StyleCAV.
Figure 2: Pairwise preference against TinyStyler. A3S (Qwen) is preferred on MUD by both human annotators and a GPT-4.1 judge. Preference is strongest on the out-of-domain LaMP and LongLaMP.
Target aspect
Purity@1
Purity@2
Vocabulary
0.985
1.000
Tone
0.935
0.965
Syntax
0.870
0.940
Perspective
0.635
0.680
Figurative
0.505
0.590
Structure
0.255
0.510
Table 2: Aspect isolation in LLM-generated rewrites.
Figure 3: Pairwise cosine between aspect directions (avg. 15 profiles). Raw aspects share a strong common component (left); after PC1 removal, residuals are negatively correlated in 60% of pairs (right).
λ
StyleCAV
Construction
α=0.4
α=0.5
−1.00
0.153
PC1-only
−0.088
−0.267
−0.50
0.192
Resid. PCB
−0.218
−0.166
−0.00 (PC1)
0.267
PC1+res. mean
−0.211
−0.315
−0.25
0.294
PC1+res. PCB
−0.241
−0.339
−0.50
0.310
Raw mean
−0.211
−0.317
−0.75
0.298
Raw PCB
0.287
0.378
Table 3: Residual role on MUD dev (StyleCAV ↑ ). Left : λ -sweep of v(λ)=uPC1+λPCB(R) . Right : steering-vector constructions at fixed α . Full results in Appendix A.11 .
Configuration
StyleCAV ( ↑ )
SBERT ( ↑ )
Aggregation Strategies (Top 4 Aspects)
PCB-Merging
0.485
0.694
Median
0.459
0.713
Mean Averaging
0.442
0.659
TIES-Merging
0.428
0.650
Individual Dimensions
Table 4: Aggregation strategies vs. single dimensions on MUD dev. PCB-Merging combines Figurative, Tone, Perspective, Structure ; Global is a single contrastive direction without aspect prompting.
Figure 4: Style–meaning trade-off on MUD dev as α varies. Fixed α must trade-off between under-steering (low StyleCAV) and degeneration (collapsing SBERT). Hybrid Adaptive Search ( α⋆ , green stars) achieves StyleCAV 0.48 while maintaining SBERT at 0.69 , outperforming all fixed α settings on the Pareto frontier.
Appendix figures & tables26 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Method
Backbone
LUAR ( ↑ )
StyleCAV ( ↑ )
StyleDistance ( ↑ )
Meaning ( ↑ )
Target Overlap ( ↓ )
Towards
Away
Towards
Away
Towards
Away
MIS
SBERT
R-1
R-2
R-L
MUD (Reddit)
Simple
Llama
0.849
0.313
0.833
0.384
0.937
0.128
0.205
0.293
0.606
0.571
0.591
Qwen
0.770
0.207
0.737
0.302
0.894
0.099
0.457
0.607
0.435
0.382
0.411
STYLL
Llama
0.636
0.317
0.545
0.365
0.852
0.127
0.330
0.541
0.157
0.034
0.092
Qwen
0.651
0.262
0.527
0.390
0.835
0.130
0.710
0.699
0.152
0.025
0.084
RG
Llama
0.634
0.278
0.583
0.333
0.856
0.114
0.529
0.635
0.137
0.026
0.080
Appendix
Table 5: Full results across the three authorship-transfer benchmarks using Llama and Qwen backbones. Towards and Away measure style fidelity; MIS and SBERT measure meaning preservation; and ROUGE-1/2/L measure target-exemplar overlap. Bold and underline indicate the best and second-best non-grayed values per dataset. Simple is grayed because its high target overlap indicates copying.
Method
Backbone
LUAR
CAV
SD
SBERT
R-L
Len
( ↑ )
( ↑ )
( ↑ )
( ↑ )
( ↓ )
GYAFC (Formal → Informal)
Simple
Llama
0.845
0.836
0.941
0.305
0.566
12.77
STYLL
Llama
0.670
0.555
0.857
0.437
0.120
8.24
RG
Llama
0.651
0.473
0.835
0.601
0.085
4.67
Aspect Prompt
Llama
0.681
0.421
0.822
0.533
0.138
11.22
Appendix
Table 6: Single-attribute formality transfer (GYAFC). Same metrics and ranking conventions as Table 1 .
Figure 5: Layer-wise classification accuracy for different stylistic dimensions. The y-axis represents the probability that the projection of the hidden state onto the learned direction is higher for the target author than the foil. We observe that high-level concepts like Perspective and Tone peak in the middle-to-late layers (Layers 10–20).
Style Fidelity ( ↑ )
Meaning Preservation ( ↑ )
Configuration
LUAR
StyleCAV
StyleDistance
SBERT
MIS
METEOR
Baselines & Individual Dimensions
Neutral (No Aspect)
0.227
0.055
0.710
0.799
0.670
0.602
Figurative
0.288
0.463
0.761
0.685
0.560
0.422
Tone
0.294
0.427
0.744
0.665
0.597
0.399
Perspective
0.297
0.403
0.755
0.713
0.677
0.417
Appendix
Table 7: Full ablation results for individual style aspects and aggregation strategies. We report Style Fidelity (LUAR, StyleCAV, StyleDistance) and Meaning Preservation (SBERT, MIS, METEOR). Neutral represents standard activation subtraction without aspect-specific prompting.
Configuration
LUAR
StyleCAV
StyleDistance
SBERT
MIS
METEOR
Time (s)
α=0.0
0.137
-0.196
0.625
0.807
0.724
0.591
0
α=0.1
0.118
-0.220
0.636
0.863
0.910
0.863
0
α=0.2
0.128
-0.093
0.655
0.880
0.912
0.689
0
α=0.3
0.161
0.170
0.708
0.910
0.901
0.759
0
α=0.4
0.199
0.307
0.741
0.874
0.827
0.729
0
α=0.5
0.247
0.409
0.752
0.761
0.704
0.612
0
Appendix
Table 8: Full results for fixed and adaptive steering coefficients on the MUD development set. Style metrics report Towards scores (higher is better).
Dataset
System
Ratio
>10%
Abs. Shift
MUD
A3S
0.876
10.97
0.415
TinyStyler
4.399
69.17
3.624
LaMP
A3S
0.838
12.70
0.457
TinyStyler
2.325
93.85
1.339
LongLaMP
A3S
0.779
14.00
0.332
TinyStyler
0.315
0.00
0.685
Appendix
Table 9: Length-shift statistics. Ratio is len(output)/len(input) in characters; >10% is the fraction of outputs more than 10% longer than the source.
Dataset
Backbone
Preference (%)
A3S
Tie
TinyStyler
MUD
Llama
54.0
7.0
39.0
Qwen
66.7
6.4
26.9
LaMP
Llama
69.0
2.0
29.0
Qwen
79.5
1.5
18.9
LongLaMP
Llama
60.0
12.0
28.0
Appendix
Table 10: Pairwise GPT-4.1 preferences comparing A3S with Llama and Qwen backbones against TinyStyler. Percentages include ties and may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Figure 6: Pairwise cosine similarity between aspect directions before (left) and after removing the first principal component (right). Raw aspect vectors share a strong common authorship component, while PC1-removed residuals expose conflicting aspect-specific corrections.
Aspect
Mean
Std
Figurative
0.832
0.289
Tone
0.359
0.110
Perspective
0.822
0.487
Structure
0.831
0.474
Syntax
0.549
0.129
Vocabulary
0.370
0.134
Appendix
Table 11: Per-aspect residual norm ratio ∥sd−projPC1(sd)∥/∥sd∥ , averaged over 15 target profiles. Larger values indicate that more of the aspect direction lies outside the shared PC1 backbone.
Dataset
# Profiles
Tokens/Profile
Sec/Profile
MUD
15
404,812
33.00
LongLaMP
100
258,328
27.84
LaMP
1,496
210,015
27.79
Appendix
Table 12: Cost of constructing A3S directions per target author/profile. Each profile uses 16 generated outputs.
Method
Total Calls
Prompt Tokens
Output Tokens
StyleCAV ↑
SBERT ↑
STYLL
3.0
2,808
891
0.581
0.742
STYLL (Reasoning)
3.0
1,739
1,887
0.420
0.767
RG
3.0
8,107
2,180
0.589
0.797
RG (Reasoning)
3.0
5,938
3,810
0.442
0.809
Aspect Prompt
3.0
7,306
1,791
0.516
0.730
Aspect Prompt (Reasoning)
3.0
6,526
3,299
0.389
0.744
Appendix
Table 13: End-to-end quality–compute comparison on the MUD development set using the Qwen backbone. Token counts include all stages of each method. The horizontal separator distinguishes prompting-based methods (above) from activation-steering methods (below). Higher StyleCAV and SBERT scores are better.
Input
Target Exemplar
A3S Output
Verratti is practically untouchable. He’s signing an extension every year or so and PSG won’t sell for even a €100m.
He didn’t do any of that … oh for fucks sake you are brilliant … hearing “DADDDDYYYYY!!” … hehe yeah, ill enjoy it while it lasts … donuts too? glazed thanks WHERE. WHERE CAN I GET ONE.
VerrATTI IS PRACtically UNTACHOOL!!1!! hes SIGNIN A EXTENR … PSG WONT SELL 4 EVN 100M
You’re assuming that Rooney is on the market while it’s clear that Mourinho thinks that he can play an important part at this club yet.
This analogy doesnt really work for jim, per se … for chrissakes hes saying BRAVO again! tss tell us how you really feel … lol opies tits sniff …
you’re assuming roonee is on the market lol no u r soooo wrong lol
Yeah, and that’s the exact way you do a 270 degree Zidane turn (the 4 star turn that u/Ewaninho showed). What Firmino is doing is not a McGeady spin. It’s a matter of semantics I guess… And what’s up with the ad hominem?
This analogy doesnt really work for jim, per se … for chrissakes hes saying BRAVO again! tss tell us how you really feel … lol opies tits sniff …
yeah and thats the exat way you do a 270 degree zidane turn … what firmino is doin is not a mcgeeedy spin its a mater of sems i gess and whats up with the ad hominem
Appendix
Table 14: Qualitative examples from the MUD dataset. Each case shows the source input, the target exemplar, and the model output. Ellipses indicate truncation for brevity.
Figure 7: Style transfer success judgment: annotators compare two candidates against the target style exemplar, and then optionally provide a rationale.
Figure 8: Meaning preservation judgment: annotators compare the same candidates against the original input to assess meaning preservation.
Figure 9: The Pairwise Style Comparison prompt used for GPT-4.1 evaluation. This prompt instructs the model to compare two candidate outputs against a reference exemplar solely on stylistic grounds, ignoring topic similarity.
Figure 10: Prompt used to produce neutralized variants.
Figure 11: Prompt used to generate contrastive tone variants.
Figure 12: Prompt used to generate contrastive narrative perspective variants.
Figure 13: Prompt used to generate contrastive diction/register variants.
Figure 14: Prompt used to generate contrastive syntactic complexity variants.
Figure 15: Prompt used to generate contrastive figurative vs. literal variants.
Figure 16: Prompt used to generate contrastive structural/organizational variants.
Figure 17: Prompt used to generate contrastive surface-form variants.
Figure 18: Turn 1 of the Aspect-Aware Prompting baseline: elicit an aspect-by-aspect analysis of the target exemplar.
Figure 19: Turn 2 of the Aspect-Aware Prompting baseline: distill the per-aspect analysis into a list of style descriptors.
Figure 20: Turn 3 of the Aspect-Aware Prompting baseline: rewrite the source input to match the elicited style descriptors.
Adapting large language models to an individual author's style from a few examples is challenging, and scientific writing sharpens the difficulty: formal conventions leave little surface variation, and authors write about their own topics, so extracted ``style'' easily entangles with content. We study style-conditioned abstract generation from a few example abstracts per author and propose three methods: (1) contrastive activation steering, (2) a network that predicts steering vectors, and (3) a hypernetwork that predicts LoRA adapters. We find a consistent trade-off between style imitation and output quality: fine-tuning buys most of the available style signal but forfeits fluency, while the hypernetwork achieves the best trade-off on both seen and unseen authors. Our steering operates at author level, contrasting an author's abstracts against style-neutral generations for the same content. This holds topic fixed, removes the need for a predefined style inventory, and outperforms inventory-based steering. % [EDIT 1a] softened "no single optimal axis" claim Moreover, our analyses demonstrate that manually extracted and predicted steering vectors are near-orthogonal yet score comparably, indicating that style conditioning here can admit at least two unrelated directions rather than requiring one particular axis.
Leonard Popp, Danni Liu, Supriti Sinhamahapatra +1
Activation steering provides a simple, training-free mechanism for controlling attributes of generative models such as sentiment, style, and helpfulness. However, standard approaches such as Difference-in-Means apply a single input-independent steering vector across all activations, limiting expressivity and ignoring the local geometry of the activation space. We propose Kernelized Activation Steering (KAS), a unifying framework that lifts activation steering into a reproducing kernel Hilbert space. KAS formulates steering as an optimization problem expressed purely via kernel evaluations, yielding an implicit, activation-dependent steering score without constructing explicit feature maps. Unlike DiM, KAS induces locally adaptive steering: each activation is modified according to its relative position with respect to source and target reference sets, producing a nonlinear steering field over the representation space. Importantly, DiM is recovered as a special case under a linear kernel, while richer kernels enable geometry-aware interventions. Across standard activation steering tasks, including jailbreaking LLMs and image style control, KAS outperforms or is on par with the existing methods.
The task of authorship style transfer involves rewriting text in the style of a target author while preserving the meaning of the original text. Existing style transfer methods train a single model on large corpora to model all target styles at once: this high-cost approach offers limited flexibility for target-specific adaptation, and often sacrifices meaning preservation for style transfer. In this paper, we propose AuthorMix: a lightweight, modular, and interpretable style transfer framework. We first train individual, style-specific LoRA adapters on a small set of high-resource authors: this allows for the rapid training of specialized adaptation models for each new target using layer-wise adapter mixing via reinforcement learning, necessitating only a handful of target-style training examples. AuthorMix ranks first on the combined style-meaning score among all baselines, including GPT-5.1, and substantially improves meaning preservation over the trained baselines; under human evaluation it is the only method best-or-tied on every dimension.
Sarubi Thillainathan, Ji-Ung Lee, Michael Sullivan +1
Department of Language Science and Technology, Saarland Informatics Campus Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany