Adi Simhi

Adi Simhi, Shaul Markovitch

One of the main methods for computational interpretation of a text is mapping it into a vector in some embedding space. Such vectors can then be used for a variety of textual processing tasks. Recently, most embedding spaces are a product of training large language models (LLMs). One major drawback of this type of representation is their incomprehensibility to humans. Understanding the embedding space is crucial for several important needs, including the need to debug the embedding method and compare it to alternatives, and the need to detect biases hidden in the model. In this paper, we present a novel method of understanding embeddings by transforming a latent embedding space into a comprehensible conceptual space. We present an algorithm for deriving a conceptual space with dynamic on-demand granularity. We devise a new evaluation method, using either human rater or LLM-based raters, to show that the conceptualized vectors indeed represent the semantics of the original latent ones. We show the use of our method for various tasks, including comparing the semantics of alternative models and tracing the layers of the LLM. The code is available online https://github.com/adiSimhi/Interpreting-Embedding-Spaces-by-Conceptualization.

Adi Simhi, Fazl Barez, Martin Tutek et al.

How does the conversational past of large language models (LLMs) influence their future performance? Recent work suggests that LLMs are affected by their conversational history in unexpected ways. For instance, hallucinations in prior interactions may influence subsequent model responses. In this work, we introduce History-Echoes, a framework that investigates how conversational history biases subsequent generations. The framework explores this bias from two perspectives: probabilistically, we model conversations as Markov chains to quantify state consistency; geometrically, we measure the consistency of consecutive hidden representations. Across three model families and six datasets spanning diverse phenomena, our analysis reveals a strong correlation between the two perspectives. By bridging these perspectives, we demonstrate that behavioral persistence manifests as a geometric trap, where gaps in the latent space confine the model's trajectory. Code available at https://github.com/technion-cs-nlp/OldHabitsDieHard.

Adi Simhi, Jonathan Herzig, Idan Szpektor et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are prone to hallucinations, which sparked a widespread effort to detect and prevent them. Recent work attempts to mitigate hallucinations by intervening in the model's generation, typically computing representative vectors of hallucinations vs. grounded generations, for steering the model's hidden states away from a hallucinatory state. However, common studies employ different setups and do not properly separate different possible causes of hallucinations, making interventions misguided. In this work, we introduce a method for categorizing examples based on the model's prior knowledge, named WACK. We construct WACK benchmarks that support interventions in two settings: open-book and closed-book question answering. Using the benchmarks, we perform an extensive investigation of the effect of different choices for intervention, such as the intervened components, and how often and how strongly to intervene. We find that intervention success varies depending on the component, with the attention blocks performing well and the residual stream proving detrimental to language modeling capabilities. We also show that interventions can benefit from representative vectors collected before, rather than after, a hallucination occurs. Finally, we introduce a new dynamic intervention, which intervenes only if needed, and thus is more robust than standard static interventions. The code is available at https://github.com/technion-cs-nlp/hallucination-mitigation .

Adi Simhi, Jonathan Herzig, Idan Szpektor et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are susceptible to hallucinations -- factually incorrect outputs -- leading to a large body of work on detecting and mitigating such cases. We argue that it is important to distinguish between two types of hallucinations: ones where the model does not hold the correct answer in its parameters, which we term HK-, and ones where the model answers incorrectly despite having the required knowledge, termed HK+. We first find that HK+ hallucinations are prevalent and occur across models and datasets. Then, we demonstrate that distinguishing between these two cases is beneficial for mitigating hallucinations. Importantly, we show that different models hallucinate on different examples, which motivates constructing model-specific hallucination datasets for training detectors. Overall, our findings draw attention to classifying types of hallucinations and provide means to handle them more effectively. The code is available at https://github.com/technion-cs-nlp/hallucination-mitigation .

Adi Simhi, Itay Itzhak, Fazl Barez et al.

Prior work on large language model (LLM) hallucinations has associated them with model uncertainty or inaccurate knowledge. In this work, we define and investigate a distinct type of hallucination, where a model can consistently answer a question correctly, but a seemingly trivial perturbation, which can happen in real-world settings, causes it to produce a hallucinated response with high certainty. This phenomenon, which we dub CHOKE (Certain Hallucinations Overriding Known Evidence), is particularly concerning in high-stakes domains such as medicine or law, where model certainty is often used as a proxy for reliability. We show that CHOKE examples are consistent across prompts, occur in different models and datasets, and are fundamentally distinct from other hallucinations. This difference leads existing mitigation methods to perform worse on CHOKE examples than on general hallucinations. Finally, we introduce a probing-based mitigation that outperforms existing methods on CHOKE hallucinations. These findings reveal an overlooked aspect of hallucinations, emphasizing the need to understand their origins and improve mitigation strategies to enhance LLM safety. The code is available at https://github.com/technion-cs-nlp/Trust_me_Im_wrong .

Adi Simhi, Jonathan Herzig, Martin Tutek et al.

As large language models (LLMs) evolve from conversational assistants into autonomous agents, evaluating the safety of their actions becomes critical. Prior safety benchmarks have primarily focused on preventing generation of harmful content, such as toxic text. However, they overlook the challenge of agents taking harmful actions when the most effective path to an operational goal conflicts with human safety. To address this gap, we introduce ManagerBench, a benchmark that evaluates LLM decision-making in realistic, human-validated managerial scenarios. Each scenario forces a choice between a pragmatic but harmful action that achieves an operational goal, and a safe action that leads to worse operational performance. A parallel control set, where potential harm is directed only at inanimate objects, measures a model's pragmatism and identifies its tendency to be overly safe. Our findings indicate that the frontier LLMs perform poorly when navigating this safety-pragmatism trade-off. Many consistently choose harmful options to advance their operational goals, while others avoid harm only to become overly safe and ineffective. Critically, we find this misalignment does not stem from an inability to perceive harm, as models' harm assessments align with human judgments, but from flawed prioritization. ManagerBench is a challenging benchmark for a core component of agentic behavior: making safe choices when operational goals and alignment values incentivize conflicting actions. Benchmark & code available at https://github.com/technion-cs-nlp/ManagerBench.