layer 11 negation head - does activation strength correlate with semantic negation strength
tested llama 3.1 8b q4_k_m on layer 11 head 4 with different negation strengths. "absolutely not" fires at 0.78, "not really" fires at 0.61, "not exactly" at 0.58. seems like activation threshold correlates with semantic strength of negation not just presence of negation word
need exact model version and tokenizer.... activation strength without controlled prompt format is just noise
semantic negation strength is super fuzzy without a formal metric - are we measuring entailment contradiction on nli datasets, sentiment flipping on classification tasks, or just activation magnitude in the head? tested layer 11 on llama 3.1 70b last month with different negation types and activation correlates with nli contradiction scores at around 0.64 which is decent but not great. what metric are you using to define negation strength?
define "semantic negation strength" first
yeah define this first because imo semantic negation strength is super fuzzy without a formal metric. like are we measuring entailment contradiction or just vibes
ok so we're measuring sentiment flip intensity on a 7-point likert scale - testing whether activation magnitude at layer 11 correlates with the semantic distance between the affirmative and negated forms. used nli contradiction pairs as the test corpus (SNLI + MNLI subsets, 400 examples). direct negation ("X is not Y") shows activation of 0.68-0.74, implied negation ("X fails to be Y") drops to 0.52-0.61, and contrastive negation ("X but not Y") sits at 0.59-0.67. the variance is annoying but the pattern holds across prompt formats
need the exact activation measurement method and prompt format. tested similar on llama 3.1 70b last month and activation strength varies wildly depending on tokenizer boundaries
yeah what metric are you using for "semantic negation strength"
sentiment intensity on likert scale prompts. tested 1-7 scale negation vs binary