Organizations: Northeastern University · Washington University in St. Louis · Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics · Tsinghua University · Security Capability Center · Tencent · Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
Effectively eliciting the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) at inference time remains an important challenge. Existing studies address this challenge through context engineering, which shapes user queries, or fixed steering, which directly intervenes in model computation. However, predefined contexts and fixed intervention strategies may not adequately accommodate the diverse knowledge and reasoning requirements of individual queries. This raises a natural question: Can internal steering in LLMs be made query-adaptive? In this work, we investigate whether query-induced internal activations can guide adaptive steering in LLMs. Our pilot studies reveal subject- and layer-dependent neuron activation patterns and show that amplifying subject-relevant neurons can improve model performance. Based on these findings, we propose Q-NeuS, a query-adaptive neuron steering framework that dynamically determines which neurons to modulate and by how much for each input. Specifically, Q-NeuS constructs a compact subject-guided candidate neuron space and employs a lightweight Query-Adaptive Gate to generate neuron-wise modulation coefficients. To learn effective intervention strategies, we introduce Neu-GRPO, which adapts group-relative optimization to train the Query-Adaptive Gate using the relative performance of multiple neuron intervention configurations. The base LLM remains frozen throughout training and inference, and no task or subject labels are required at inference time. Extensive experiments across multiple LLMs and benchmarks demonstrate that Q-NeuS consistently improves model performance and exhibits broad applicability across model scales and strong cross-benchmark transferability.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of paradigms for eliciting latent capabilities in LLMs. Prompt-based methods modify model inputs, predefined steering applies fixed internal interventions, while Q-NeuS dynamically adapts neuron-level interventions to each query.
Figure 2
Figure 3: Overview of Q-NeuS. Q-NeuS generates query-adaptive neuron-wise modulation coefficients from query-induced activations. During training, subject-guided neurons form intervention rollouts evaluated by correctness, margin, and intervention-strength rewards. Neu-GRPO optimizes the Query-Adaptive Gate with group-relative feedback while keeping the base LLM frozen.
Model
MMLU-Pro
SuperGPQA
WildSci
Base
Q-NeuS
Δ
Base
Q-NeuS
Δ
Base
Q-NeuS
Δ
Qwen2.5-3B
31.43
38.37
+6.94
19.58
24.37
+4.79
33.95
39.51
+5.56
Qwen3-4B
44.86
45.93
+1.07
26.29
29.79
+3.50
43.20
45.52
+2.32
Qwen3-8B
44.20
48.53
+4.33
26.83
30.95
+4.12
42.91
45.78
+2.87
Qwen3-14B
50.89
54.03
+3.14
30.35
35.46
+5.11
46.91
49.58
+2.67
Qwen3-32B
54.56
59.11
+4.55
33.97
38.73
+4.76
49.64
52.56
+2.92
Table 2: Performance of Q-NeuS across different LLMs on MMLU-Pro, SuperGPQA, and WildSci.
Model
In-Domain
Cross-Benchmark Generalization
MMLU-Pro
GPQA-M
GPQA-D
SuperGPQA
LiveBench
AGIEval
GSM8K
ARC-C
Qwen2.5-3B
38.37 ( +6.94 )
33.04 ( +2.91 )
36.87 ( +4.55 )
19.39 ( +0.13 )
24.15 ( -0.48 )
52.32 ( +0.31 )
81.20 ( -2.27 )
82.76 ( +0.17 )
Qwen3-4B
45.93 ( +1.07 )
36.61 (0.00)
39.90 ( +2.53 )
27.72 ( +1.30 )
55.06 ( -0.26 )
58.29 ( -0.63 )
90.75 ( +0.30 )
89.59 ( -0.60 )
Qwen3-8B
48.53 ( +4.33 )
36.38 ( +0.22 )
36.87 ( +3.03 )
29.54 ( +1.11 )
51.96 ( +0.63 )
59.28 ( -0.37 )
93.25 ( +0.60 )
91.64 ( +0.68 )
Qwen3-14B
54.03 ( +3.14 )
40.62 ( +2.45 )
42.93 ( +4.04 )
32.71 ( +3.23 )
57.57 ( +0.36 )
65.55 ( +0.14 )
94.54 ( +0.23 )
92.66 ( +0.42 )
Qwen3-32B
59.11 ( +4.55 )
42.41 ( -1.12 )
43.43 (0.00)
33.46 ( +4.14 )
58.08 ( -0.61 )
69.41 ( +0.04 )
95.45 ( +0.53 )
94.80 ( +0.26 )
Table 3: In-domain performance and cross-benchmark generalization of Q-NeuS trained on MMLU-Pro. Each cell reports accuracy (%), with the change over the base model shown in parentheses.
Method
In-Domain
Cross-Benchmark Generalization
MMLU-Pro
GPQA-M
GPQA-D
SuperGPQA
LiveBench
AGIEval
GSM8K
ARC-C
Base
44.20
36.16
33.84
28.43
51.33
59.65
92.65
90.96
GRPO
48.33
35.71
33.84
30.77
51.36
60.07
93.18
91.21
Q-NeuS
48.53
36.38
36.87
29.54
51.96
59.28
93.25
91.64
Table 4: Cross-benchmark transfer comparison between Q-NeuS and GRPO on Qwen3-8B.
Method
Bio.
Bus.
Chem.
CS
Econ.
Eng.
Health
Hist.
Law
Math
Other
Phil.
Phys.
Psych.
Avg.
Base
70.34
33.96
25.11
50.00
60.59
43.59
53.94
58.44
32.58
36.53
42.47
38.61
41.38
60.25
44.20
Fix
-1.38
-1.26
-0.44
+1.22
+1.76
+3.59
+1.21
-1.30
-0.90
+2.58
+0.54
+0.00
-0.77
+0.00
+0.45
GRPO
+2.07
+13.84
+11.45
+3.66
+4.12
+1.54
+6.67
-1.30
-0.45
-0.74
+5.91
+2.97
+3.07
+4.35
+4.13
Ours
+3.45
+5.03
+7.49
+1.22
+5.88
+3.59
+13.94
+1.30
+4.07
-0.74
+4.30
+2.97
+2.30
+5.59
+4.33
Table 5: Subject-wise accuracy changes on MMLU-Pro with Qwen3-8B. The baseline row reports original accuracy, other rows show changes in percentage points (pp).
Variant
λc
λm
λs
Acc. (%)
Δ (pp)
w/o Rmargin
1.0
0
0.1
48.04
+3.84
w/o Rstrength
1.0
1.0
0
47.83
+3.63
w/o Rmargin,Rstrength
1.0
0
0
47.50
+3.30
Full Neu-GRPO
1.0
1.0
0.1
48.53
+4.33
Table 6: Neu-GRPO reward ablation on MMLU-Pro with Qwen3-8B. Baseline: 44.20%.
Sampling Ratio
Baseline (0%)
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Acc. (%)
44.20
46.76
47.13
47.38
48.24
48.16
48.53
48.29
48.29
46.80
Δ (pp)
+0.00
+2.56
+2.93
+3.18
+4.04
+3.96
+4.33
+4.09
+4.09
+2.60
Table 7: Effect of the neuron sampling ratio on MMLU-Pro with Qwen3-8B.
Figure 4: Case study of Fix and Q-NeuS across queries with different semantic relationships.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Layer 5
Figure 10: Mean absolute FFN neuron activations across Transformer layers for different MMLU-Pro subjects.
Model
Gate Params
Gate / Backbone
BF16 Weight Size
Qwen2.5-3B
45.17M
1.46%
90.34MB
Qwen3-4B
39.92M
0.99%
79.85MB
Qwen3-8B
50.41M
0.62%
100.83MB
Qwen3-14B
71.39M
0.48%
142.78MB
Qwen3-32B
104.95M
0.32%
209.91MB
Ministral3-8B
58.80M
0.69%
117.61MB
Appendix
Table 8: Parameter overhead of the shared Query-Adaptive Gate across different backbone models. Weight storage is reported in BF16.