Edoardo Pona

Edoardo Pona, Milad Kazemi, Mehran Hosseini et al.

Monitoring LLM safety at scale requires balancing cost and accuracy: a cheap latent-space probe can screen every input, but hard cases should be escalated to a more expensive expert. Existing cascades delegate based on probe uncertainty, but uncertainty is a poor proxy for delegation benefit, as it ignores whether the expert would actually correct the error. To address this problem, we introduce Calibrate-Then-Delegate (CTD), a model-cascade approach that provides probabilistic guarantees on the computation cost while enabling instance-level (streaming) decisions. CTD builds on a novel delegation value (DV) probe, a lightweight model operating on the same internal representations as the safety probe that directly predicts the benefit of escalation. To enforce budget constraints, CTD calibrates a threshold on the DV signal using held-out data via multiple hypothesis testing, yielding finite-sample guarantees on the delegation rate. Evaluated on four safety datasets, CTD consistently outperforms uncertainty-based delegation at every budget level, avoids harmful over-delegation, and adapts budget allocation to input difficulty without requiring group labels.

Diogo Cruz, Edoardo Pona, Alex Holness-Tofts et al.

Many capable large language models (LLMs) are developed via self-supervised pre-training followed by a reinforcement-learning fine-tuning phase, often based on human or AI feedback. During this stage, models may be guided by their inductive biases to rely on simpler features which may be easier to extract, at a cost to robustness and generalisation. We investigate whether principles governing inductive biases in the supervised fine-tuning of LLMs also apply when the fine-tuning process uses reinforcement learning. Following Lovering et al (2021), we test two hypotheses: that features more $\textit{extractable}$ after pre-training are more likely to be utilised by the final policy, and that the evidence for/against a feature predicts whether it will be utilised. Through controlled experiments on synthetic and natural language tasks, we find statistically significant correlations which constitute strong evidence for these hypotheses.

Edoardo Pona, Milad Kazemi, Yali Du et al.

Counterfactual inference is a powerful tool for analysing and evaluating autonomous agents, but its application to language model (LM) agents remains challenging. Existing work on counterfactuals in LMs has primarily focused on token-level counterfactuals, which are often inadequate for LM agents due to their open-ended action spaces. Unlike traditional agents with fixed, clearly defined action spaces, the actions of LM agents are often implicit in the strings they output, making their action spaces difficult to define and interpret. Furthermore, the meanings of individual tokens can shift depending on the context, adding complexity to token-level reasoning and sometimes leading to biased or meaningless counterfactuals. We introduce \emph{Abstract Counterfactuals}, a framework that emphasises high-level characteristics of actions and interactions within an environment, enabling counterfactual reasoning tailored to user-relevant features. Our experiments demonstrate that the approach produces consistent and meaningful counterfactuals while minimising the undesired side effects of token-level methods. We conduct experiments on text-based games and counterfactual text generation, while considering both token-level and latent-space interventions.