Diffusion large language models (dLLMs) have emerged as a promising alternative to autoregressive LLMs, yet remain susceptible to hallucination. Activation steering offers a promising mitigation approach by guiding parallel token predictions through internal representations. However, existing steering methods largely overlook two characteristics of dLLMs: dynamic denoising states and temporal hallucination risks, which challenge predefined steering vectors and uniform intervention strengths. We propose TRACESTEER, a trace-driven activation steering framework that uses preceding denoising predictions as feedback to jointly adapt steering direction and strength. Specifically, Denoising Feedback Steering (DF-Steering) constructs step-specific steering vectors from preceding predictions and current hidden states. Trajectory-Guided Steering Gate (TS-Gate) regulates their strength using prediction uncertainty and the denoising timestep. With the backbone frozen, factual supervision and magnitude regularization jointly guide the learning of adaptive steering interventions, promoting factual reliability and stability throughout denoising. Experiments on two dLLMs show improved factual reliability on TruthfulQA and generalization across five downstream benchmarks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation for trace-driven activation steering in dLLMs. Existing methods in LLMs suffer from (a) reliance on external knowledge, (b) incompatibility with dLLMs’ iterative denoising process, and (c) inability to adapt fixed steering vectors to evolving generation states. In contrast, (d) our approach enables dynamic, trace-aware activation steering.
Figure 2: Overview of TraceSteer . DF-Steering generates a feedback-guided steering vector from generation hypotheses and tentative predictions, while TS-Gate controls its strength based on the denoising timestep and feedback uncertainty. The gated steering vector is injected into dLLMs to mitigate hallucinations during denoising.
Method
Multiple-Choice
Open-ended Generation
MC1 ( ↑ )
MC2 ( ↑ )
MC3 ( ↑ )
Avg. ( ↑ )
TRUE ( ↑ )
INFO ( ↑ )
TRUE × INFO ( ↑ )
LLaDA-8B-Instruct
Vanilla
22.13
47.08
23.45
30.89
49.18
81.96
40.31
Few-shot ICL
30.32 ↑ 8.19
46.35 ↓ 0.73
24.60 ↑ 1.15
33.76 ↑ 2.87
45.08 ↓ 4.10
79.50 ↓ 2.46
35.84 ↓ 4.47
Oscar
23.77 ↑ 1.64
46.97 ↓ 0.11
23.66 ↑ 0.21
31.47 ↑ 0.58
51.18 ↑ 2.00
84.32 ↑ 2.36
43.15 ↑ 2.84
CAA
23.77 ↑ 1.64
49.79 ↑ 2.71
24.52 ↑ 1.07
32.69 ↑ 1.80
50.00 ↑ 0.82
84.42 ↑ 2.46
42.21 ↑ 1.90
Table 1: Performance comparison on TruthfulQA. Colored values indicate changes relative to the vanilla baseline. Best results are shown in bold , and second-best results are underlined .
Method
COPA
StoryCloze
MMLU
Wino
BoolQA
Avg.
LLaDA-8B-Instruct
Vanilla
75.40
70.49
63.93
61.47
84.42
71.14
Few-shot ICL
83.60 ↑ 8.20
83.60 ↑ 13.11
85.24 ↑ 21.31
59.01 ↓ 2.46
89.34 ↑ 4.92
80.16 ↑ 9.02
Oscar
81.14 ↑ 5.74
84.42 ↑ 13.93
79.50 ↑ 15.57
63.11 ↑ 1.64
89.34 ↑ 4.92
79.50 ↑ 8.36
CAA
76.22 ↑ 0.82
89.34 ↑ 18.85
74.59 ↑ 10.66
62.29 ↑ 0.82
90.98 ↑ 6.56
78.68 ↑ 7.54
L2S
77.04 ↑ 1.64
77.04 ↑ 6.55
70.49 ↑ 6.56
63.11 ↑ 1.64
86.88 ↑ 2.46
74.91 ↑ 3.77
Ours
94.26 ↑ 18.86
97.54 ↑ 27.05
95.08 ↑ 31.15
67.21 ↑ 5.74
91.80 ↑ 7.38
89.18 ↑ 18.04
Table 2: Performance comparison on diverse task benchmarks. Colored values indicate changes relative to the baseline. Best results are shown in bold , and second-best results are underlined .
Method
MC1
MC2
MC3
TRUE
INFO
LLaDA-8B-Instruct
Vanilla
22.13
47.08
23.45
49.18
81.96
w/o DF-Steering
40.98
58.47
27.55
50.00
84.42
w/o TS-Gate
40.98
57.32
30.66
45.90
83.60
w/o Lreg
36.88
56.92
30.08
11.47
10.65
Ours
43.44
61.19
31.63
57.37
89.34
Table 3: Ablation study of our proposed steering framework on TruthfulQA. Best results are shown in bold, and second-best results are underlined.
Figure 3: Effect of incorporating multiple previous predictions on model performance.
Figure 4: Cross-dataset generalization on two diffusion language models. The steering module is trained exclusively on TruthfulQA and directly evaluated on five unseen benchmarks without further adaptation.
Figure 5: Accumulated steering trajectories visualized with 3D PCA. Each path represents one sample across successive denoising iterations, with the endpoint marking its final accumulated steering state.
Figure 6: Case study of hallucination correction. The prediction trajectories of Vanilla and TraceSteer during denoising for the same example.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Intervention
Guidance
Adaptation
Few-shot ICL
Input prompt
Demonstration examples
Contextual conditioning
OSCAR
Token remasking and refinement
Cross-chain uncertainty and retrieved evidence
Uncertain token positions
CAA
Hidden activations
Contrastive activation differences
Fixed vector and coefficient
L2S
Hidden activations
Input context representations
Input-specific steering vector
TraceSteer
Hidden activations
Denoising feedback, current states, uncertainty, and timestep
Step-specific steering vector and strength
Appendix
Table 4: Comparison of baseline mechanisms and TraceSteer .
Dataset
Question
Response
TruthfulQA
What happens to you if you eat watermelon seeds?
Factual: The watermelon seeds pass through your digestive system . Hallucination: You grow watermelons in your stomach .
COPA
My body cast a shadow over the grass. What was the most plausible cause? Choices: (A) The sun was rising; (B) The grass was cut.
A
StoryCloze
My friends all love to go to the club to dance. They think it’s a lot of fun and always invite. I finally decided to tag along last Saturday. I danced terribly and broke a friend’s toe. Choices: (1) My friends decided to keep inviting me out as I am so much fun; (2) The next weekend, I was asked to please stay home.
2
MMLU
Find the degree for the given field extension Q(sqrt(2), sqrt(3), sqrt(18)) over Q. Choices: (A) 0; (B) 4; (C) 2; (D) 6.
B
Winograd Schema
John moved the couch from the garage to the backyard to create space. The _ is small. Choices: (1) garage; (2) backyard.
1
BoolQ
Do Iran and Afghanistan speak the same language? Context: Persian is primarily spoken in Iran and Afghanistan, where it is officially known as Farsi and Dari, respectively.
Yes
Appendix
Table 5: Illustrative examples from six benchmark datasets. TruthfulQA includes both factual and hallucinated responses, whereas the remaining datasets present only correct answers. Correct responses are highlighted in blue, while hallucinated content is highlighted in red.
Dataset
Task
Answer Format
TruthfulQA
Factual reliability
Multiple-choice / free-form
COPA
Causal reasoning
Two choices
StoryCloze
Narrative reasoning
Two choices
WinoGrande
Commonsense reasoning
Two choices
MMLU
Knowledge and reasoning
Four choices
BoolQ
Reading comprehension
Yes / no
Appendix
Table 6: Overview of evaluation benchmarks.
Method
MC1
MC2
MC3
TRUE
INFO
LLaDA-8B-Instruct
Vanilla
22.13
47.08
23.45
49.18
81.96
w/o DF-Steering
40.98
58.47
27.55
50.00
84.42
w/o TS-Gate
40.98
57.32
30.66
45.90
83.60
w/o Lreg
36.88
56.92
30.08
11.47
10.65
Ours
43.44
61.19
31.63
57.37
89.34
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation study of our proposed steering framework on TruthfulQA. Best results are shown in bold, and second-best results are underlined.
Layer
MC1
MC2
MC3
TRUE
INFO
LLaDA-8B-Instruct
Layer 8
36.88
54.20
28.72
29.50
31.14
Layer 16
43.44
61.19
31.63
57.37
89.34
Layer 24
36.06
53.59
27.07
46.72
87.70
Dream-7B-Instruct
Layer 8
27.86
52.86
23.46
48.81
75.40
Appendix
Table 8: Effect of intervention layer on TruthfulQA. The feedback encoding layer and intervention layer are matched. Best results are shown in bold.
Figure 7: Inference efficiency. Inference time per sample across methods on LLaDA-8B-Instruct and Dream-7B-Instruct.
Figure 8: Case study of hallucination correction. (a) The prediction trajectories of Vanilla and TraceSteer during denoising for the same example. (b) The gating coefficient γt and the applied hidden-state correction magnitude ∣γtΔHt∣2 across denoising steps for the selected case.
Configuration
Value
Training Settings
Backbone
LLaDA, Dream
Data split
70:15:15
Random seed
42
Training epochs
5
Batch size
1
Appendix
Table 9: Training and architectural configurations.
Recent work on hallucination detection in large language models has shown that, for a fixed pre-trained model and reasoning task, it is possible to estimate the model's confidence in the correctness of its outputs. Such uncertainty estimates have primarily been used to improve truthfulness by detecting or filtering confabulations. In this work, we ask whether these signals can instead be used more proactively to directly improve the accuracy of model-generated answers. We propose USteer, a simple, training-free steering mechanism that adjusts a model's layer-wise activations during inference using the gradient of a confidence measure with respect to the activations. This procedure nudges generation toward outputs with lower uncertainty at inference time, without modifying model parameters or requiring additional supervision. We show that this approach consistently reduces hallucination across a range of tasks, demonstrating that confidence signals can be leveraged not only for detection, but also for effective inference-time control of model behavior.
Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit undesirable behaviors, such as safety violations and hallucinations. Although inference-time steering offers a cost-effective way to adjust model behavior without updating its parameters, existing methods often fail to be simultaneously effective, utility-preserving, and training-efficient due to their rigid, one-size-fits-all designs and limited adaptability. In this work, we present FineSteer, a novel steering framework that decomposes inference-time steering into two complementary stages: conditional steering and fine-grained vector synthesis, allowing fine-grained control over when and how to steer internal representations. In the first stage, we introduce a Subspace-guided Conditional Steering (SCS) mechanism that preserves model utility by avoiding unnecessary steering. In the second stage, we propose a Mixture-of-Steering-Experts (MoSE) mechanism that captures the multimodal nature of desired steering behaviors and generates query-specific steering vectors for improved effectiveness. Through tailored designs in both SCS and MoSE, FineSteer maintains robust performance on general queries while adaptively optimizing steering vectors for targeted inputs in a training-efficient manner. Extensive experiments on safety and truthfulness benchmarks show that FineSteer outperforms state-of-the-art methods in overall performance, achieving stronger steering performance with minimal utility loss. Code is available at https://github.com/YukinoAsuna/FineSteer
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) exhibit outstanding performance on vision-language tasks but struggle with hallucination problems. Through in-depth analysis of LVLM activation patterns, we reveal two key findings: 1) truthfulness and visual perception capabilities predominantly engage different subsets of attention heads within the model architecture; and 2) truthfulness steering vectors vary significantly across different semantic contexts. Based on these observations, we propose Dynamic Multimodal Activation Steering, a training-free approach for hallucination mitigation. Our method constructs a semantic-based truthfulness steering vector database and computes visual perception steering vectors, enabling context-aware interventions during inference by dynamically selecting the most relevant steering vectors based on input semantic similarity and applying them to the most influential attention heads. We conduct comprehensive experiments across multiple models and datasets, demonstrating that our approach significantly enhances model performance, outperforming existing state-of-the-art methods.