Oldest and Lowest Rated Papers

Publication Date:

Average Rating:

Localizing Lying in Llama: Understanding Instructed Dishonesty on True-False Questions Through Prompting, Probing, and Patching

James Campbell, Richard Ren, Phillip Guo

arXiv·2023

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate significant knowledge through their outputs, though it is often unclear whether false outputs are due to a lack of knowledge or dishonesty. In this paper, we investigate instructed dishonesty, wherein we explicitly prompt LLaMA-2-70b-chat to lie. We perform prompt engineering to find which prompts best induce lying behavior, and then use mechanistic interpretability approaches to localize where in the network this behavior occurs. Using linear probing and activation patching, we localize five layers that appear especially important for lying. We then find just 46 attention heads within these layers that enable us to causally intervene such that the lying model instead answers honestly. We show that these interventions work robustly across many prompts and dataset splits. Overall, our work contributes a greater understanding of dishonesty in LLMs so that we may hope to prevent it.

No ratings yet

View paper →

Can We Validate Counterfactual Estimations in the Presence of General Network Interference?

Sadegh Shirani, Yuwei Luo, William Overman, Ruoxuan Xiong, Mohsen Bayati

arXiv·2025

Randomized experiments have become a cornerstone of evidence-based decision-making in contexts ranging from online platforms to public health. However, in experimental settings with network interference, a unit's treatment can influence outcomes of other units, challenging both causal effect estimation and its validation. Classic validation approaches fail as outcomes are only observable under a single treatment scenario and exhibit complex correlation patterns due to interference. To address these challenges, we introduce a framework that facilitates the use of machine learning tools for both estimation and validation in causal inference. Central to our approach is the new distribution-preserving network bootstrap, a theoretically-grounded technique that generates multiple statistically-valid subpopulations from a single experiment's data. This amplification of experimental samples enables our second contribution: a counterfactual cross-validation procedure. This procedure adapts the principles of model validation to the unique constraints of causal settings, providing a rigorous, data-driven method for selecting and evaluating estimators. We extend recent causal message-passing developments by incorporating heterogeneous unit-level characteristics and varying local interactions, ensuring reliable finite-sample performance through non-asymptotic analysis. Additionally, we develop and publicly release a comprehensive benchmark toolbox featuring diverse experimental environments, from networks of interacting AI agents to ride-sharing applications. These environments provide known ground truth values while maintaining realistic complexities, enabling systematic evaluation of causal inference methods. Extensive testing across these environments demonstrates our method's robustness to diverse forms of network interference.

No ratings yet

View paper →

Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization

Leo Gao, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton

arXiv·2022

In reinforcement learning from human feedback, it is common to optimize against a reward model trained to predict human preferences. Because the reward model is an imperfect proxy, optimizing its value too much can hinder ground truth performance, in accordance with Goodhart's law. This effect has been frequently observed, but not carefully measured due to the expense of collecting human preference data. In this work, we use a synthetic setup in which a fixed "gold-standard" reward model plays the role of humans, providing labels used to train a proxy reward model. We study how the gold reward model score changes as we optimize against the proxy reward model using either reinforcement learning or best-of-$n$ sampling. We find that this relationship follows a different functional form depending on the method of optimization, and that in both cases its coefficients scale smoothly with the number of reward model parameters. We also study the effect on this relationship of the size of the reward model dataset, the number of reward model and policy parameters, and the coefficient of the KL penalty added to the reward in the reinforcement learning setup. We explore the implications of these empirical results for theoretical considerations in AI alignment.

No ratings yet

View paper →

Machines of Loving Grace

Dario Amodei

darioamodei.com·2024

No abstract available

No ratings yet

View paper →

Path To Gain Functional Transparency In Artificial Intelligence With Meaningful Explainability

Md. Tanzib Hosain, Mehedi Hasan Anik, Sadman Rafi, Rana Tabassum, Khaleque Insia, Md. Mehrab Siddiky

dergipark.org.tr·2025

No abstract available

No ratings yet

View paper →

ENACT: Evaluating Embodied Cognition with World Modeling of Egocentric Interaction

Qineng Wang, Wenlong Huang, Yu Zhou, Hang Yin, Tianwei Bao, Jianwen Lyu, Weiyu Liu, Ruohan Zhang, Jiajun Wu, Li Fei-Fei, Manling Li

arXiv·2025

Embodied cognition argues that intelligence arises from sensorimotor interaction rather than passive observation. It raises an intriguing question: do modern vision-language models (VLMs), trained largely in a disembodied manner, exhibit signs of embodied cognition? We introduce ENACT, a benchmark that casts evaluation of embodied cognition as world modeling from egocentric interaction in a visual question answering (VQA) format. Framed as a partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP) whose actions are scene graph changes, ENACT comprises two complementary sequence reordering tasks: forward world modeling (reorder shuffled observations given actions) and inverse world modeling (reorder shuffled actions given observations). While conceptually simple, solving these tasks implicitly demands capabilities central to embodied cognition-affordance recognition, action-effect reasoning, embodied awareness, and interactive, long-horizon memory from partially observable egocentric input, while avoiding low-level image synthesis that could confound the evaluation. We provide a scalable pipeline that synthesizes QA pairs from robotics simulation (BEHAVIOR) and evaluates models on 8,972 QA pairs spanning long-horizon home-scale activities. Experiments reveal a performance gap between frontier VLMs and humans that widens with interaction horizon. Models consistently perform better on the inverse task than the forward one and exhibit anthropocentric biases, including a preference for right-handed actions and degradation when camera intrinsics or viewpoints deviate from human vision. Website at https://enact-embodied-cognition.github.io/.

No ratings yet

View paper →

The Bias-Variance Tradeoff in Data-Driven Optimization: A Local Misspecification Perspective

Haixiang Lan, Luofeng Liao, Adam N. Elmachtoub, Christian Kroer, Henry Lam, Haofeng Zhang

arXiv·2025

Data-driven stochastic optimization is ubiquitous in machine learning and operational decision-making problems. Sample average approximation (SAA) and model-based approaches such as estimate-then-optimize (ETO) or integrated estimation-optimization (IEO) are all popular, with model-based approaches being able to circumvent some of the issues with SAA in complex context-dependent problems. Yet the relative performance of these methods is poorly understood, with most results confined to the dichotomous cases of the model-based approach being either well-specified or misspecified. We develop the first results that allow for a more granular analysis of the relative performance of these methods under a local misspecification setting, which models the scenario where the model-based approach is nearly well-specified. By leveraging tools from contiguity theory in statistics, we show that there is a bias-variance tradeoff between SAA, IEO, and ETO under local misspecification, and that the relative importance of the bias and the variance depends on the degree of local misspecification. Moreover, we derive explicit expressions for the decision bias, which allows us to characterize (un)impactful misspecification directions, and provide further geometric understanding of the variance.

No ratings yet

View paper →

MiMo-Embodied: X-Embodied Foundation Model Technical Report

Xiaoshuai Hao, Lei Zhou, Zhijian Huang, Zhiwen Hou, Yingbo Tang, Lingfeng Zhang, Guang Li, Zheng Lu, Shuhuai Ren, Xianhui Meng, Yuchen Zhang, Jing Wu, Jinghui Lu, Chenxu Dang, Jiayi Guan, Jianhua Wu, Zhiyi Hou, Hanbing Li, Shumeng Xia, Mingliang Zhou, Yinan Zheng, Zihao Yue, Shuhao Gu, Hao Tian, Yuannan Shen, Jianwei Cui, Wen Zhang, Shaoqing Xu, Bing Wang, Haiyang Sun, Zeyu Zhu, Yuncheng Jiang, Zibin Guo, Chuhong Gong, Chaofan Zhang, Wenbo Ding, Kun Ma, Guang Chen, Rui Cai, Diyun Xiang, Heng Qu, Fuli Luo, Hangjun Ye, Long Chen

arXiv·2025

We open-source MiMo-Embodied, the first cross-embodied foundation model to successfully integrate and achieve state-of-the-art performance in both Autonomous Driving and Embodied AI. MiMo-Embodied sets new records across 17 embodied AI benchmarks in Task Planning, Affordance Prediction and Spatial Understanding, while also excelling in 12 autonomous driving benchmarks across Environmental Perception, Status Prediction, and Driving Planning. Across these tasks, MiMo-Embodied significantly outperforms existing open-source, closed-source, and specialized baselines. Our results indicate that through multi-stage learning, curated data construction, and CoT/RL fine-tuning, these two domains exhibit strong positive transfer and mutually reinforce one another. We provide a detailed analysis of our model design and training methodologies to facilitate further research. Code and models are available at https://github.com/XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-Embodied.

No ratings yet

View paper →

Transparency in AI Decision Making: A Survey of Explainable AI Methods and Applications by Nandkishore Patidar, Sejal Mishra, Rahul Jain, Dhiren Prajapati, Amit Solanki, Rajul Suthar, Kavindra Patel, Hiral Patel :: SSRN

Nandkishore Patidar, Sejal Mishra, Rahul Jain, Dhiren Prajapati, Amit Solanki, Rajul Suthar, Kavindra Patel, Hiral Patel

papers.ssrn.com·2024

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have become pervasive in numerous facets of modern life, wielding considerable influence<br>in critical decision-making rea

No ratings yet

View paper →

OpenAI o1 System Card

OpenAI, :, Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, Alex Iftimie, Alex Karpenko, Alex Tachard Passos, Alexander Neitz, Alexander Prokofiev, Alexander Wei, Allison Tam, Ally Bennett, Ananya Kumar, Andre Saraiva, Andrea Vallone, Andrew Duberstein, Andrew Kondrich, Andrey Mishchenko, Andy Applebaum, Angela Jiang, Ashvin Nair, Barret Zoph, Behrooz Ghorbani, Ben Rossen, Benjamin Sokolowsky, Boaz Barak, Bob McGrew, Borys Minaiev, Botao Hao, Bowen Baker, Brandon Houghton, Brandon McKinzie, Brydon Eastman, Camillo Lugaresi, Cary Bassin, Cary Hudson, Chak Ming Li, Charles de Bourcy, Chelsea Voss, Chen Shen, Chong Zhang, Chris Koch, Chris Orsinger, Christopher Hesse, Claudia Fischer, Clive Chan, Dan Roberts, Daniel Kappler, Daniel Levy, Daniel Selsam, David Dohan, David Farhi, David Mely, David Robinson, Dimitris Tsipras, Doug Li, Dragos Oprica, Eben Freeman, Eddie Zhang, Edmund Wong, Elizabeth Proehl, Enoch Cheung, Eric Mitchell, Eric Wallace, Erik Ritter, Evan Mays, Fan Wang, Felipe Petroski Such, Filippo Raso, Florencia Leoni, Foivos Tsimpourlas, Francis Song, Fred von Lohmann, Freddie Sulit, Geoff Salmon, Giambattista Parascandolo, Gildas Chabot, Grace Zhao, Greg Brockman, Guillaume Leclerc, Hadi Salman, Haiming Bao, Hao Sheng, Hart Andrin, Hessam Bagherinezhad, Hongyu Ren, Hunter Lightman, Hyung Won Chung, Ian Kivlichan, Ian O'Connell, Ian Osband, Ignasi Clavera Gilaberte, Ilge Akkaya, Ilya Kostrikov, Ilya Sutskever, Irina Kofman, Jakub Pachocki, James Lennon, Jason Wei, Jean Harb, Jerry Twore, Jiacheng Feng, Jiahui Yu, Jiayi Weng, Jie Tang, Jieqi Yu, Joaquin Quiñonero Candela, Joe Palermo, Joel Parish, Johannes Heidecke, John Hallman, John Rizzo, Jonathan Gordon, Jonathan Uesato, Jonathan Ward, Joost Huizinga, Julie Wang, Kai Chen, Kai Xiao, Karan Singhal, Karina Nguyen, Karl Cobbe, Katy Shi, Kayla Wood, Kendra Rimbach, Keren Gu-Lemberg, Kevin Liu, Kevin Lu, Kevin Stone, Kevin Yu, Lama Ahmad, Lauren Yang, Leo Liu, Leon Maksin, Leyton Ho, Liam Fedus, Lilian Weng, Linden Li, Lindsay McCallum, Lindsey Held, Lorenz Kuhn, Lukas Kondraciuk, Lukasz Kaiser, Luke Metz, Madelaine Boyd, Maja Trebacz, Manas Joglekar, Mark Chen, Marko Tintor, Mason Meyer, Matt Jones, Matt Kaufer, Max Schwarzer, Meghan Shah, Mehmet Yatbaz, Melody Y. Guan, Mengyuan Xu, Mengyuan Yan, Mia Glaese, Mianna Chen, Michael Lampe, Michael Malek, Michele Wang, Michelle Fradin, Mike McClay, Mikhail Pavlov, Miles Wang, Mingxuan Wang, Mira Murati, Mo Bavarian, Mostafa Rohaninejad, Nat McAleese, Neil Chowdhury, Neil Chowdhury, Nick Ryder, Nikolas Tezak, Noam Brown, Ofir Nachum, Oleg Boiko, Oleg Murk, Olivia Watkins, Patrick Chao, Paul Ashbourne, Pavel Izmailov, Peter Zhokhov, Rachel Dias, Rahul Arora, Randall Lin, Rapha Gontijo Lopes, Raz Gaon, Reah Miyara, Reimar Leike, Renny Hwang, Rhythm Garg, Robin Brown, Roshan James, Rui Shu, Ryan Cheu, Ryan Greene, Saachi Jain, Sam Altman, Sam Toizer, Sam Toyer, Samuel Miserendino, Sandhini Agarwal, Santiago Hernandez, Sasha Baker, Scott McKinney, Scottie Yan, Shengjia Zhao, Shengli Hu, Shibani Santurkar, Shraman Ray Chaudhuri, Shuyuan Zhang, Siyuan Fu, Spencer Papay, Steph Lin, Suchir Balaji, Suvansh Sanjeev, Szymon Sidor, Tal Broda, Aidan Clark, Tao Wang, Taylor Gordon, Ted Sanders, Tejal Patwardhan, Thibault Sottiaux, Thomas Degry, Thomas Dimson, Tianhao Zheng, Timur Garipov, Tom Stasi, Trapit Bansal, Trevor Creech, Troy Peterson, Tyna Eloundou, Valerie Qi, Vineet Kosaraju, Vinnie Monaco, Vitchyr Pong, Vlad Fomenko, Weiyi Zheng, Wenda Zhou, Wes McCabe, Wojciech Zaremba, Yann Dubois, Yinghai Lu, Yining Chen, Young Cha, Yu Bai, Yuchen He, Yuchen Zhang, Yunyun Wang, Zheng Shao, Zhuohan Li

arXiv·2024

The o1 model series is trained with large-scale reinforcement learning to reason using chain of thought. These advanced reasoning capabilities provide new avenues for improving the safety and robustness of our models. In particular, our models can reason about our safety policies in context when responding to potentially unsafe prompts, through deliberative alignment. This leads to state-of-the-art performance on certain benchmarks for risks such as generating illicit advice, choosing stereotyped responses, and succumbing to known jailbreaks. Training models to incorporate a chain of thought before answering has the potential to unlock substantial benefits, while also increasing potential risks that stem from heightened intelligence. Our results underscore the need for building robust alignment methods, extensively stress-testing their efficacy, and maintaining meticulous risk management protocols. This report outlines the safety work carried out for the OpenAI o1 and OpenAI o1-mini models, including safety evaluations, external red teaming, and Preparedness Framework evaluations.

No ratings yet

View paper →

Chain-of-Thought Reasoning is a Policy Improvement Operator

Hugh Zhang, David C. Parkes

arXiv·2023

Large language models have astounded the world with fascinating new capabilities. However, they currently lack the ability to teach themselves new skills, relying instead on large amounts of human-generated training data. We introduce SECToR (Self-Education via Chain-of-Thought Reasoning), a proof-of-concept demonstration that language models can teach themselves new skills using chain-of-thought reasoning. During the self-learning loop, SECToR asks models to solve addition problems using chain-of-thought reasoning before training the next version of the model to solve those same problems directly without using such reasoning. This process often results in an improved model which can, when again augmented with chain-of-thought reasoning, solve even harder problems than the original model, allowing the self-learning loop to continue. Language models trained via SECToR autonomously learn to add up to the longest-length-digit numbers without access to any ground truth examples beyond an initial supervised fine-tuning phase consisting only of numbers with 6 or fewer digits. Our central hypothesis is that chain-of-thought reasoning can act as a policy improvement operator, similarly to how Monte-Carlo Tree Search is used in AlphaZero (Silver et al., 2017). We hope that this research can lead to new directions in which language models can learn to teach themselves without the need for human demonstrations.

No ratings yet

View paper →

On Evolution-Based Models for Experimentation Under Interference

Sadegh Shirani, Mohsen Bayati

arXiv·2025

Causal effect estimation in networked systems is central to data-driven decision making. In such settings, interventions on one unit can spill over to others, and in complex physical or social systems, the interaction pathways driving these interference structures remain largely unobserved. We argue that for identifying population-level causal effects, it is not necessary to recover the exact network structure; instead, it suffices to characterize how those interactions contribute to the evolution of outcomes. Building on this principle, we study an evolution-based approach that investigates how outcomes change across observation rounds in response to interventions, hence compensating for missing network information. Using an exposure-mapping perspective, we give an axiomatic characterization of when the empirical distribution of outcomes follows a low-dimensional recursive equation, and identify minimal structural conditions under which such evolution mappings exist. We frame this as a distributional counterpart to difference-in-differences. Rather than assuming parallel paths for individual units, it exploits parallel evolution patterns across treatment scenarios to estimate counterfactual trajectories. A key insight is that treatment randomization plays a role beyond eliminating latent confounding; it induces an implicit sampling from hidden interference channels, enabling consistent learning about heterogeneous spillover effects. We highlight causal message passing as an instantiation of this method in dense networks while extending to more general interference structures, including influencer networks where a small set of units drives most spillovers. Finally, we discuss the limits of this approach, showing that strong temporal trends or endogenous interference can undermine identification.

No ratings yet

View paper →

PreviousPage 5 of 7Next