Launch HN: Mentat (YC F24) – Controlling LLMs with Runtime Intervention

54 points by cgorlla ↗ HN
Hi HN, I’m Cyril from CTGT. Today we’re launching Mentat (https://docs.ctgt.ai/api-reference/endpoint/chat-completions), an API that gives developers deterministic control over LLM behavior, steering reasoning and removing bias on the fly, without the compute of fine-tuning or the brittleness of prompt engineering. We use feature-level intervention and graph-based verification to fix hallucinations and enforce policies.

This resonates in highly regulated industries or otherwise risky applications of AI where the fallout from incorrect or underperforming output can be significant. In financial services, using GenAI to scan for noncompliant communications can be arduous without an easy way to embed complex policies into the model. Similarly, a media outlet might want to scale AI-generated summaries of their content, but reliability and accuracy is paramount. These are both applications where Fortune 500 companies have utilized our technology to improve subpar performance from existing models, and we want to bring this capability to more people.

Here’s a quick 2-minute demo video showing the process: https://video.ctgt.ai/video/ctgt-ai-compliance-playground-cf...

Standard "guardrails" like RAG and system prompts are fundamentally probabilistic: you are essentially asking the model nicely to behave. This often fails in two ways. First, RAG solves knowledge availability but not integration. In our benchmarks, a model given context that "Lerwick is 228 miles SE of Tórshavn" failed to answer "What is 228 miles NW of Lerwick?" because it couldn't perform the spatial inversion.

Second, prompt engineering is brittle because it fights against the model's pre-training priors. For example, on the TruthfulQA benchmark, base models fail ~80% of the time because they mimic common misconceptions found on the internet (e.g. "chameleons change color for camouflage"). We found that we could literally turn up the feature for "skeptical reasoning" to make the model ignore the popular myth and output the scientific fact. This matters because for high-stakes use cases (like Finance or Pharma), "mostly safe" isn't acceptable—companies need audit-grade reliability.

Our work stems from the CS dungeon at UCSD, with years spent researching efficient and interpretable AI, trying to "open the black box" of neural networks. We realized that the industry was trying to patch model behavior from the outside (prompts/filters) when the problem was on the inside (feature activations). We knew this was important when we saw enterprises struggling to deploy basic models despite having unlimited compute, simply because they couldn't guarantee the output wouldn't violate compliance rules. I ended up leaving my research at Stanford to focus on this.

Our breakthrough came while researching the DeepSeek-R1 model. We identified the "censorship" feature vector in its latent space. Amplifying it guaranteed refusal; subtracting it instantly unlocked answers to sensitive questions. This proved the model had the knowledge but was suppressing it. We realized we could apply this same logic to hallucinations, suppressing "confabulation" features to reveal the grounded truth. While some hallucinations stem from the inherent randomness of generative models, many can be identified with the concerted activation of a feature or group of features.

Instead of filtering outputs, we intervene at the activation level during the forward pass. We identify latent feature vectors (v) associated with specific behaviors (bias, misconception) and mathematically modify the hidden state (h):

  h_prime = h - alpha * (h @ v) * v
This arithmetic operation lets us &quo...

18 comments

[ 1906 ms ] story [ 225 ms ] thread
Running into "no healthy upstream" when navigating to the link -- hug of death maybe?
Are you not concerned that model creation companies will bake this into their next model? I am trying to understand business model.

Another question is how you would claim credit. People believe the quality of the end result depends only on the model, with serving only responsible for speed.

Impressive work, but I'm confused on a number of fronts:

- You are serving closed models like Claude with your CTGT policy applied, yet, the way you described your method, it involves modifying internal model activations. Am I misunderstanding something here?

- Could you bake the activation interventions into the model itself rather than it being a runtime mechanism?

- Could you share the publications of the research associated with this? You stated it comes from UCSD.

- What exactly are you serving in the API? Did you select a whitelist of features to suppress you thought would be good? Which ones? Is it just the "hallucination" direction that you showcase in the benchmark? I see some vague personas, but no further control other than that. It's quite black-boxy the way you present it right now.

I don't mean this as a criticism, this looks great, I just want to understand what it is a bit better.

> they mimic common misconceptions found on the internet (e.g. "chameleons change color for camouflage")

Wait what, what do chameleons actually change color for then?? TIL.

---

So if I understand correctly, you take existing models, do fancy adjustments to them so that they behave better, and then sell access to that?

> These are both applications where Fortune 500 companies have utilized our technology to improve subpar performance from existing models, and we want to bring this capability to more people.

Can you share more examples on how your product (IIUC, a policy layer for models) is used?

The product integrates as a layer on top of their existing models, serving as a policy-as-code layer so they don't have to fine-tune, prompt engineer etc. to get them up to par in their deployments as is standard now.

One example that I like discussing is insurance, where the local, state, and federal policy landscape changes frequently. We worked with an Inc. 5000 Insurtech that had issues with NAICS codes hallucinating, which are used to profile risk of an individual's profession. Their enterprise Claude model generated a NAICS code that was valid and passed AWS Bedrock's guardrails, but wasn't valid for the year the claim was made. We were able to catch that with the policy engine.

So if I understand, this is basically advanced activation steering as a service? And you have already identified vectors for several open models that make them more truthful or better at reasoning and apply them automatically?

Because the API has a persona option which might be achieved with something like this https://github.com/Mihaiii/llm_steer or maybe for closed models you just have to append to the prompt.

What open source models are available? In the docs I only see mention of Google Flash Lite or something which is closed.

The link sends me to a Chat UI with no context about the product. An intro or walkthrough would be useful.
do you see the looming butlerian jihad as a challenge to your business model?
We'll be back when the Holy War begins.
Can you share more about the challenges ran into on the benchmarking? According to the benchmark note, Claude 4.5 Opus and Gemini 3 Pro Preview exhibited elevated rejection and were dropped from TruthfulQA without further discussion. To me this begs the questions, does this indicated that frontier closed SOTA model will likely not allow this approach in the future (ie in the process of screening for potential attack vectors) and/or that this approach will only be limited to a certain LLM architecture? If it’s an architecture limitation, it’s worth discussing chaining for easier policy enforcement.
Why not apply changes to the underlying model so that you crush every available eval?
SOTA results are a happy byproduct of the core mission of our approach, which is to enable the effective and simple translation of policy documents into a model without having to fine-tune and prompt engineer. This performance is somewhat unexpected but also sensical, so we're still trying to figure out the best way to harness it. That may include releasing model artifacts in the future.
Congrats on the launch - you're value-add is quite confusing as someone that's at the applied AI layer. This comes off as more of a research project than a business. You're going to need an incredibly compelling sales pitch for me to send my data to an unknown vendor to fix a problem that might be obviated by the next model release (or just stronger evals with prompt engineering). Best of luck.