Been Kim

Meera Hahn, Wenjun Zeng, Nithish Kannen et al.

User prompts for generative AI models are often underspecified, leading to a misalignment between the user intent and models' understanding. As a result, users commonly have to painstakingly refine their prompts. We study this alignment problem in text-to-image (T2I) generation and propose a prototype for proactive T2I agents equipped with an interface to (1) actively ask clarification questions when uncertain, and (2) present their uncertainty about user intent as an understandable and editable belief graph. We build simple prototypes for such agents and propose a new scalable and automated evaluation approach using two agents, one with a ground truth intent (an image) while the other tries to ask as few questions as possible to align with the ground truth. We experiment over three image-text datasets: ImageInWords (Garg et al., 2024), COCO (Lin et al., 2014) and DesignBench, a benchmark we curated with strong artistic and design elements. Experiments over the three datasets demonstrate the proposed T2I agents' ability to ask informative questions and elicit crucial information to achieve successful alignment with at least 2 times higher VQAScore (Lin et al., 2024) than the standard T2I generation. Moreover, we conducted human studies and observed that at least 90% of human subjects found these agents and their belief graphs helpful for their T2I workflow, highlighting the effectiveness of our approach. Code and DesignBench can be found at https://github.com/google-deepmind/proactive_t2i_agents.

John Hewitt, Robert Geirhos, Been Kim

This position paper argues that, in order to understand AI, we cannot rely on our existing vocabulary of human words. Instead, we should strive to develop neologisms: new words that represent precise human concepts that we want to teach machines, or machine concepts that we need to learn. We start from the premise that humans and machines have differing concepts. This means interpretability can be framed as a communication problem: humans must be able to reference and control machine concepts, and communicate human concepts to machines. Creating a shared human-machine language through developing neologisms, we believe, could solve this communication problem. Successful neologisms achieve a useful amount of abstraction: not too detailed, so they're reusable in many contexts, and not too high-level, so they convey precise information. As a proof of concept, we demonstrate how a "length neologism" enables controlling LLM response length, while a "diversity neologism" allows sampling more variable responses. Taken together, we argue that we cannot understand AI using our existing vocabulary, and expanding it through neologisms creates opportunities for both controlling and understanding machines better.

John Hewitt, Oyvind Tafjord, Robert Geirhos et al.

Humans invent new words when there is a rising demand for a new useful concept (e.g., doomscrolling). We explore and validate a similar idea in our communication with LLMs: introducing new words to better understand and control the models, expanding on the recently introduced neologism learning. This method introduces a new word by adding a new word embedding and training with examples that exhibit the concept with no other changes in model parameters. We show that adding a new word allows for control of concepts such as flattery, incorrect answers, text length, as well as more complex concepts in AxBench. We discover that neologisms can also further our understanding of the model via self-verbalization: models can describe what each new word means to them in natural language, like explaining that a word that represents a concept of incorrect answers means ``a lack of complete, coherent, or meaningful answers...'' To validate self-verbalizations, we introduce plug-in evaluation: we insert the verbalization into the context of a model and measure whether it controls the target concept. In some self-verbalizations, we find machine-only synonyms: words that seem unrelated to humans but cause similar behavior in machines. Finally, we show how neologism learning can jointly learn multiple concepts in multiple words.

Lauren Hyoseo Yoon, Yisong Yue, Been Kim

Independently trained vision and language models inhabit disjoint representational spaces, shaped by their respective modalities, objectives, and architectures. The Platonic Representation Hypothesis (PRH) suggests these models may nonetheless converge toward a shared statistical model of reality. This raises a fundamental question: can we move beyond post-hoc detection of such alignment and explicitly optimize for it? We argue this challenge is most critical in fine-grained contextual distinctions-where multiple descriptions share global semantics but differ in subtle compositional details. We address this with the Joint Autoencoder Modulator (JAM), which aligns frozen unimodal models by jointly training modality-specific autoencoders with coordinated reconstruction and cross-modal alignment objectives. We systematically evaluate JAM across three design axes: (i) alignment objectives, introducing our multimodal Spread Loss that outperforms classic contrastive methods; (ii) the layer depth at which alignment is most effective; and (iii) the role of foundation model scale in representational convergence. Our findings show that JAM reliably induces alignment even across independently trained representations, offering both theoretical insight into the structure of shared semantics and practical guidance for transforming generalist unimodal foundations into specialist multimodal models.

Zi Wang, Alexander Ku, Jason Baldridge et al.

Understanding which concepts models can and cannot represent has been fundamental to many tasks: from effective and responsible use of models to detecting out of distribution data. We introduce Gaussian process probes (GPP), a unified and simple framework for probing and measuring uncertainty about concepts represented by models. As a Bayesian extension of linear probing methods, GPP asks what kind of distribution over classifiers (of concepts) is induced by the model. This distribution can be used to measure both what the model represents and how confident the probe is about what the model represents. GPP can be applied to any pre-trained model with vector representations of inputs (e.g., activations). It does not require access to training data, gradients, or the architecture. We validate GPP on datasets containing both synthetic and real images. Our experiments show it can (1) probe a model's representations of concepts even with a very small number of examples, (2) accurately measure both epistemic uncertainty (how confident the probe is) and aleatory uncertainty (how fuzzy the concepts are to the model), and (3) detect out of distribution data using those uncertainty measures as well as classic methods do. By using Gaussian processes to expand what probing can offer, GPP provides a data-efficient, versatile and uncertainty-aware tool for understanding and evaluating the capabilities of machine learning models.

Andrew Gordon Wilson, Been Kim, William Herlands

This is the Proceedings of NIPS 2016 Workshop on Interpretable Machine Learning for Complex Systems, held in Barcelona, Spain on December 9, 2016