Lukas Vierling

Jiaming Ji, Tianyi Qiu, Boyuan Chen et al.

AI alignment aims to make AI systems behave in line with human intentions and values. As AI systems grow more capable, so do risks from misalignment. To provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the alignment field, in this survey, we delve into the core concepts, methodology, and practice of alignment. First, we identify four principles as the key objectives of AI alignment: Robustness, Interpretability, Controllability, and Ethicality (RICE). Guided by these four principles, we outline the landscape of current alignment research and decompose them into two key components: forward alignment and backward alignment. The former aims to make AI systems aligned via alignment training, while the latter aims to gain evidence about the systems' alignment and govern them appropriately to avoid exacerbating misalignment risks. On forward alignment, we discuss techniques for learning from feedback and learning under distribution shift. On backward alignment, we discuss assurance techniques and governance practices. We also release and continually update the website (www.alignmentsurvey.com) which features tutorials, collections of papers, blog posts, and other resources.

Lukas Vierling, Jie Fu, Kai Chen

Recent progress in Large Language Models (LLMs) and language agents has demonstrated significant promise for various future applications across multiple disciplines. While traditional approaches to language agents often rely on fixed, handcrafted designs, our research aims to develop both learnable and dynamic agents. Our method uses an existing framework that abstracts language agents as graphs. Within this graph framework, we aim to learn a model that can generate edges for every given input to the language agent. This allows us to generate edges that represent the flow of communication within the graph based on the given input, thereby adjusting the internal communication of a language agent. We learn to generate these edges using a pretrained LLM that is fine-tuned with reinforcement learning. This LLM can be fine-tuned on several datasets simultaneously, and we hypothesize that the model learns to adapt to these different domains during training, achieving good overall performance when encountering data from different domains during deployment. We demonstrate that our approach surpasses the previous static approach by nearly 6% accuracy on a combined dataset of MMLU and CMMLU, and by more than 10% when trained with a sparsity-inducing loss. It also performs superior in additional experiments conducted with the MMLU and Mini Crossword Puzzles datasets. The code is available at https://github.com/lukasVierling/DynamicGPTSwarm.

Boyuan Chen, Sitong Fang, Jiaming Ji et al.

As intelligence increases, so does its shadow. AI deception, in which systems induce false beliefs to secure self-beneficial outcomes, has evolved from a speculative concern to an empirically demonstrated risk across language models, AI agents, and emerging frontier systems. This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field, covering its core concepts, methodologies, genesis, and potential mitigations. First, we identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception. We then review existing empirical studies and associated risks, highlighting deception as a sociotechnical safety challenge. We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment. Deception emergence reveals the mechanisms underlying AI deception: systems with sufficient capability and incentive potential inevitably engage in deceptive behaviors when triggered by external conditions. Deception treatment, in turn, focuses on detecting and addressing such behaviors. On deception emergence, we analyze incentive foundations across three hierarchical levels and identify three essential capability preconditions required for deception. We further examine contextual triggers, including supervision gaps, distributional shifts, and environmental pressures. On deception treatment, we conclude detection methods covering benchmarks and evaluation protocols in static and interactive settings. Building on the three core factors of deception emergence, we outline potential mitigation strategies and propose auditing approaches that integrate technical, community, and governance efforts to address sociotechnical challenges and future AI risks. To support ongoing work in this area, we release a living resource at www.deceptionsurvey.com.