Which Way Was I Steered? Testing Signed Introspection in Gemma 3
Aiden Geunhyoung Kim
Can a language model tell not only that its activations were perturbed, but which semantic direction they were moved? We test this in Gemma 3 27B using a bipolar positive–negative sentiment axis, equal-magnitude +v/−v interventions, counterbalanced forced-choice token-logit readouts, and a prior-only protocol in which steering is removed before the model answers. The axis was strongly separable (held-out AUROC 0.979), causally steered sentiment in both directions under continuous injection, and preserved control-task accuracy. However, after the intervention was removed, the model could neither detect nor identify its direction: pooled sign accuracy was 49.4% over 312 trials, while +v and −v detection were 51.0% and 52.1%, all at chance. This demonstrates a boundary between causal steerability and reportable introspective access: changing an internal representation does not imply that the model can later report the change.
The distinction you're drawing is a good one. Noticing that something was injected isn't the same as knowing which way; a detector that only measures distance from normal fires either way and tells you nothing about direction. Two opposite pushes of equal size is a clean way to force the harder question, since that kind of detector can't pass by construction. The engineering is careful for 24 hours: you reproduce the existing detection result before running anything new, use forced choice instead of yes/no to dodge the known bias toward "yes," and add a runtime check that kills the run if the steering hook is still attached at question time. The safety framing lands too; a self-report channel that only works while something is actively happening is useless at exactly the moment you'd want to query it.
My main concern is that there's no positive control for the sign task itself. You ask a new question in a new format and get a chance. That's consistent with your conclusion, but equally consistent with the model being unable to answer this question in this format even when the answer is plainly available. Your ceiling comparison is the concept-detection replication, which you rightly flag as unmatched. The missing condition is the sign question with steering still on, same axis; if the model can report direction live but not after, the claim is locked down - you list this in future work. Related: your validation gates all run with steering active while the test runs with it removed, and your own "what didn't work" section says the removed condition showed no directional effect. Two small things. Your dose explanation for the disagreement with Pearson-Vogel is reasonable, but you differ on model, axis type, layer count, and protocol at once, so dose is one candidate of four. Housekeeping: your PDF title doesn't match the review form, and your LLM usage statement appears to have the abstract pasted into it.
The three validation checks make this null result convincing, and the equal-magnitude design is a good test.
However, the missing part is the hidden-state analysis.
Since the hidden states are already available, run this analysis to determine whether the internal trace is truly gone or just difficult to detect.
Do this before publishing.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Which Way Was I Steered? Testing Signed Introspection in Gemma 3
},
author={
Aiden Geunhyoung Kim
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


