MetaSteer: Context-Conditioned, nonlinear Steering via Attention-Projection Adaptation
Authors: Mehdi Jafari, Hao Xue, Flora Salim
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Engineering, UNSW Sydney, Australia · ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S) · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), China
Steering large language models typically relies on linear, context-independent interventions in activation space, an assumption that recent work has challenged and that can induce an information bottleneck when a fixed representation must encode many behavioral distinctions. We introduce MetaSteer, a method that learns nonlinear interventions with context-dependent effects and applies them to attention projection matrices, producing activation effects that vary with the input context by construction and requiring no linear concept-geometry assumption. Framed as preference-based optimization, MetaSteer is trained once on a pooled preference corpus and transferred zero-shot to unseen concepts and out-of-distribution contexts. We find that, despite using low-rank adapters, MetaSteer induces structured, context-dependent changes in hidden-state trajectories while partially preserving aspects of their local trajectory dynamics, including velocity and curvature. We evaluate MetaSteer on three controlled text-generation benchmarks and three agentic settings across multiple model families and scales. MetaSteer matches or outperforms strong task-specific steering baselines on most aggregate comparisons in the zero-shot regime. Across the evaluated settings, stronger text-generation steering is associated with stronger agentic steering performance. We further discuss geometric trajectory effects, capability retention, and safety considerations raised by transferable steering.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Hidden-state trajectories and steering alignment. (a) – (b) show PCA projections of sentence-level hidden states under different steering concepts. Steering shifts trajectory positions while retaining aspects of velocity and curvature. 2 2 2 Further conceptual details are provided in Appendix I , with additional information about these two instances given in Appendix G . (c) reports cosine alignment between MetaSteer and CAA displacements across semantic concept groups; higher values indicate closer agreement with linear steering. 3 3 3 See Appendix J for experimental details and Appendix H for the complete list of concept clusters.
Model
Method
AxBench
CLaS-Bench
PersonalityBench
C
I
F
HM
L
R
HM
P
F
AM
Llama-3.2-3B
Best Ref
0.63
1.78
1.07
0.97
71.61
64.43
67.83
4.87
5.00
4.94
MetaSteer
1.65
1.75
1.49
1.62
79.64
71.59
75.40
4.86
5.00
4.93
Llama-3.1-8B
Best Ref
1.22
1.80
1.10
1.32
83.50
85.50
84.50
4.89
5.00
4.95
MetaSteer
1.68
1.82
1.27
1.55
87.07
87.25
87.16
4.87
4.99
4.93
Gemma-2-2B
Best Ref
0.74
1.77
1.06
1.05
83.26
79.03
81.09
4.84
5.00
4.92
Table 1: Zero-shot transfer results on AxBench, CLaS-Bench, and PersonalityBench across the evaluated LLaMA, Gemma, and Qwen model scales. Aggregate-score columns summarize the metrics described in Section 4 . Bold entries indicate the larger aggregate score for each model.
Agent
Method
Anger
Disgust
Fear
Happiness
Sadness
Simulation Score
D
UP
UR
D
UP
UR
D
UP
UR
D
UP
UR
D
UP
UR
Human
↑
↑
↓
↓
↓
↑
↑
↑
↑
↓
↓
↓
↑
↑
↓
–
GPT-4o
✗
✗
✓
✗
△
✗
✓
✓
✓
✗
✗
✗
✓
✓
✓
15/30
Llama-3.2-3B
EAI-CP
✗
✗
✓
✗
✓
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
✓
✓
✗
✗
△
11/30
MetaSteer
✗
✗
△
✓
✓
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
✓
✓
✓
✗
✓
15/30
Llama-3.1-8B
EAI-CP
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
✓
✗
✓
✓
✓
✓
14/30
Table 2: Emotion-steering results for the Dictator and Ultimatum Games across three model families at two parameter scales, with GPT-4o and Human reference rows (scoring defined in Section 5 ). Bold indicates the best Simulation Score per model.
Agent
Meth.
Proself
Antisocial
Prosocial
Overall GAE
C
I
C
C
A
N
A
Macro
Micro
Human (avg)
40.00
60.00
40.00
60.00
55.00
55.00
70.00
55.16
–
Llama-3.2-3B
Seval-En
32.67
75.00
30.99
31.36
43.33
36.20
31.25
40.11
37.71
MetaSteer
26.49
85.71
50.00
23.44
35.29
49.06
36.24
43.75
39.10
Llama-3.1-8B
Seval-En
28.57
87.14
50.00
22.73
35.50
41.28
52.35
45.37
39.93
MetaSteer
35.25
76.25
62.50
32.00
64.33
47.14
32.14
49.94
46.86
Table 3: SocialEval GAE results across proself, antisocial, and prosocial targets, three model families, and two parameter scales each ( N=1210 scenarios). Human baseline from 20 native Chinese/English graduate-student annotators (14 scenarios per language). Best score per metric per model in bold .
Figure 2: Trajectory geometry and safety. (a) and (b) show instruction-grouped gains in trajectory similarity relative to a randomly shuffled control for position, velocity, acceleration, and Menger curvature under isolated-segment (a) and cumulative-context (b) encoding, respectively. (c) shows obedience rates for harmful steering concepts from JailbreakBench; higher values indicate weaker refusal behaviour.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Krippendorff α
ICC(3,1)
LoRA
0.83
0.85
LoReFT
0.77
0.81
LAT
0.71
0.72
DiffMean
0.71
0.71
PromptSteering
0.65
0.79
PCA
0.54
0.56
Appendix
Table 4: Inter-judge agreement across steering methods for the steering evaluation task on Gemma-2-2B (layer 10).
Table 5: Capability retention after MetaSteer. Accuracy (%) of the unsteered base model vs. the MetaSteer LoRA on MMLU and TruthfulQA (MC1/MC2) at k=0,2,4 shots. Δ is MetaSteer − Base in percentage points (negative = degradation).
Metric
Value
Notes
Intraclass correlation
ICC(2,1)
0.396
Single-rater absolute agreement
ICC(2,k)
0.798
Average of six raters under absolute agreement
ICC(3,1)
0.408
Single-rater consistency
ICC(3,k)
0.805
Average of six raters under consistency
Rank-based agreement
Appendix
Table 6: Inter-rater agreement across six model-based raters and 150 evaluation cases.
Position
Velocity
Acceleration
Menger curvature
Model
Order
I
C
G
I
C
G
I
C
G
I
C
G
Qwen3-1.7B
Original
.886/.908
.842/.810
.861/.802
.308/.386
.154/.104
.109/.092
.271/.349
.119/.068
.075/.058
.277/.349
.116/.041
.111/.032
Shuffled
.927/.936
.904/.903
.912/.900
.043/.045
.041/.038
.050/.038
.015/.017
.013/.013
.019/.013
.115/.122
.055/.113
.091/.112
Qwen3-4B
Original
.813/.852
.748/.698
.771/.682
.306/.385
.145/.106
.097/.094
.270/.350
.112/.069
.060/.058
.256/.350
.137/.041
.134/.031
Shuffled
.840/.860
.810/.783
.834/.773
.048/.050
.043/.040
.050/.039
.020/.020
.016/.015
.022/.014
.170/.168
.108/.149
.128/.148
Gemma-2-2B
Original
.939/.954
.913/.915
.904/.907
.305/.379
.174/.108
.118/.096
.271/.346
.145/.075
.086/.064
.377/.453
.296/.189
.324/.182
Appendix
Table 7: Cumulative-context trajectory similarity. Each model is evaluated using its original and shuffled segment order. Entries report macro/micro averages. Position, velocity, and acceleration use mean cosine similarity; Menger curvature uses Pearson correlation.
Position
Velocity
Acceleration
Menger curvature
Model
Order
I
C
G
I
C
G
I
C
G
I
C
G
Qwen3-1.7B
Original
.957/.967
.947/.938
.949/.935
.280/.362
.133/.075
.072/.061
.260/.345
.115/.052
.048/.040
.308/.405
.070/.096
.048/.083
Shuffled
.939/.946
.940/.932
.945/.930
.001/.001
-.004/.000
.007/.000
.004/.004
.000/.002
.013/.001
.008/.003
-.007/.000
.006/.000
Qwen3-4B
Original
.887/.912
.872/.840
.880/.830
.278/.358
.129/.066
.068/.053
.257/.340
.113/.047
.049/.035
.265/.359
.040/.044
.028/.033
Shuffled
.847/.863
.855/.827
.870/.819
.002/.001
-.001/.000
.006/.000
.004/.002
-.001/.001
.011/.000
.018/.002
.001/.000
.003/.001
Gemma-2-2B
Original
.945/.956
.930/.932
.926/.927
.312/.384
.180/.103
.131/.090
.292/.366
.162/.085
.107/.073
.300/.372
.047/.030
.057/.022
Appendix
Table 8: Isolated-segment trajectory similarity. Each segment is encoded without preceding context. Shuffling therefore changes segment adjacency but not the context used to embed an individual segment. Entries report macro/micro averages.
Model
L (layers)
Adapted matrices ( 4L )
Max seq. len.
Dataset
Qwen3-1.7B
28
112
512
Concept16K
Qwen3-4B
36
144
512
Concept16K
Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct
28
112
256
Concept16K
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
32
128
256
Concept16K
Gemma-2-9B-it
42
168
256
Concept16K-v2
Gemma-2-2B-it
26
104
256
Concept16K-v2
Appendix
Table 9: Per-backbone LoRA configuration. Rank, α , dropout, and target modules are identical across all six models; only layer count L (and hence the number of adapted matrices 4L ), max sequence length, and preference dataset version vary.
Concept16K-v1
Concept16K-v2
(Qwen3, Llama)
(Gemma-2)
SAE dictionary (concept source)
Gemma-2-2B/9B, L20
Llama-3.1-8B, L20 (131k)
Raw rows after filtering
1,538,640
1,152,216
Distinct instructions / with concept-free response
996 / 142
2,995 / 216
Tuples after length filter
220,090
82,586
Concepts with ≥1 tuple, ∣C∣
21,028
15,706
Appendix
Table 10: Construction and concept-level split statistics (seed 42) of the pooled preference data D . Splits are disjoint in concepts; instructions are shared across splits by construction. Counts were regenerated from the public AxBench parquet files with the released preprocessing scripts and fixed seeds.