Raphaël Sarfati

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 $M_h$ to representations and a behavior manifold $M_y$ to output probability distributions. We then test the link $M_h \leftrightarrow M_y$ via interventions: we find that steering along $M_h$, which we term \textit{manifold steering}, yields behavioral trajectories that follow $M_y$, 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 $M_y$ recovers activation trajectories that trace the curvature of $M_h$. 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*.

Does structure in representations imply structure in computation? We study how Llama-3.1-8B reasons over cyclic concepts (e.g., *what month is three months after November?*). Even though Llama-3.1-8B has circular representations for these concepts, we find that instead of directly computing modular addition in the period of the cyclic concept (e.g., 12 for months), the model re-uses a generic addition mechanism across tasks that operates independently of concept-specific geometry. First, it computes the sum of its two inputs using non-modular addition (*three + November*=14). Then, it maps back to cyclic concept space (14->February). We show that Llama-3.1-8B uses task-agnostic Fourier features to compute these sums—in fact, these features have periods that respect standard base-10 addition, e.g., 2, 5, and 10, rather than the cyclic concept period (e.g., 12). Furthermore, we identify a sparse, reusable set of 28 MLP neurons (approximately 0.2% of the MLP at layer 18) that can be partitioned into disjoint clusters that each compute the sum for a Fourier feature with a different period. Our work highlights how an interplay between causal abstraction and feature geometry can deepen our mechanistic understanding of LMs.