Connor Watts

Aaditya Vikram Prasad, Connor Watts, Jack Merullo et al.

Language models trained on large-scale datasets have been shown to learn features that encode abstract concepts such as factuality or intent. Such features are traditionally used for test-time monitoring or steering. We present an alternative affordance: features as scalable supervision for open-ended tasks. We consider the case of hallucination-reduction as a desirable, yet open-ended behavior and design a reinforcement learning (RL) pipeline, titled RLFR (Reinforcement Learning from Feature Rewards), that uses features as reward functions. Grounded in a novel probing framework that identifies candidate hallucinated claims, our pipeline teaches a model to intervene and correct its completions when it is uncertain of their factuality. Furthermore, the pipeline enables scalable test-time compute, guided once more by our reward features. This end-to-end process operationalized on Gemma-3-12B-IT results in a policy that is 58% less likely to hallucinate compared to the original model, while preserving performance on standard benchmarks. Taken together, by grounding supervision in the language of features, this paper introduces a novel paradigm in the use of interpretability for learning open-ended tasks.

Joey Skaf, Luis Ibanez-Lissen, Robert McCarthy et al.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning not only enhances large language model performance but also provides critical insights into decision-making processes, marking it as a useful tool for monitoring model intent and planning. By proactively preventing models from acting on CoT indicating misaligned or harmful intent, CoT monitoring can be used to reduce risks associated with deploying models. However, developers may be incentivized to train away the appearance of harmful intent from CoT traces, by either customer preferences or regulatory requirements. Recent works have shown that banning mention of a specific example of reward hacking, which may be done either to make CoT presentable to users or as a naive attempt to prevent the behavior, causes obfuscation of the undesired reasoning traces but the persistence of the undesired behavior. Such obfuscation threatens the reliability of CoT monitoring. However, obfuscation of reasoning can be due to its internalization to latent space computation, or its encoding within the CoT. Here, we provide an extension to these results. First, we show that penalizing the use of specific strings within load-bearing reasoning traces causes models to substitute alternative strings. Crucially, this does not alter the underlying method by which the model performs the task, demonstrating that the model can learn to steganographically encode its reasoning. We further demonstrate that models can generalize an encoding scheme. When the penalized strings belong to an overarching class, the model learns not only to substitute strings seen in training, but also develops a general encoding scheme for all members of the class which it can apply to held-out testing strings.

Jatin Nainani, Sankaran Vaidyanathan, Connor Watts et al.

Modern large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across a wide range of multi-step reasoning tasks. Recent work suggests that LLMs may perform planning - selecting a future target token in advance and generating intermediate tokens that lead towards it - rather than merely improvising one token at a time. However, existing studies assume fixed planning horizons and often focus on single prompts or narrow domains. To distinguish planning from improvisation across models and tasks, we present formal and causally grounded criteria for detecting planning and operationalize them as a semi-automated annotation pipeline. We apply this pipeline to both base and instruction-tuned Gemma-2-2B models on the MBPP code generation benchmark and a poem generation task where Claude 3.5 Haiku was previously shown to plan. Our findings show that planning is not universal: unlike Haiku, Gemma-2-2B solves the same poem generation task through improvisation, and on MBPP it switches between planning and improvisation across similar tasks and even successive token predictions. We further show that instruction tuning refines existing planning behaviors in the base model rather than creating them from scratch. Together, these studies provide a reproducible and scalable foundation for mechanistic studies of planning in LLMs.