Chatrik Singh Mangat

Giorgi Giglemiani, Nora Petrova, Chatrik Singh Mangat et al.

Sparse Auto-Encoders (SAEs) are commonly employed in mechanistic interpretability to decompose the residual stream into monosemantic SAE latents. Recent work demonstrates that perturbing a model's activations at an early layer results in a step-function-like change in the model's final layer activations. Furthermore, the model's sensitivity to this perturbation differs between model-generated (real) activations and random activations. In our study, we assess model sensitivity in order to compare real activations to synthetic activations composed of SAE latents. Our findings indicate that synthetic activations closely resemble real activations when we control for the sparsity and cosine similarity of the constituent SAE latents. This suggests that real activations cannot be explained by a simple "bag of SAE latents" lacking internal structure, and instead suggests that SAE latents possess significant geometric and statistical properties. Notably, we observe that our synthetic activations exhibit less pronounced activation plateaus compared to those typically surrounding real activations.

Jett Janiak, Jacek Karwowski, Chatrik Singh Mangat et al.

We identify stable regions in the residual stream of Transformers, where the model's output remains insensitive to small activation changes, but exhibits high sensitivity at region boundaries. These regions emerge during training and become more defined as training progresses or model size increases. The regions appear to be much larger than previously studied polytopes. Our analysis suggests that these stable regions align with semantic distinctions, where similar prompts cluster within regions, and activations from the same region lead to similar next token predictions. This work provides a promising research direction for understanding the complexity of neural networks, shedding light on training dynamics, and advancing interpretability.

Gabriel Recchia, Chatrik Singh Mangat, Jinu Nyachhyon et al.

Scalable oversight protocols aim to empower evaluators to accurately verify AI models more capable than themselves. However, human evaluators are subject to biases that can lead to systematic errors. We conduct two studies examining the performance of simple oversight protocols where evaluators know that the model is "correct most of the time, but not all of the time". We find no overall advantage for the tested protocols, although in Study 1, showing arguments in favor of both answers improves accuracy in cases where the model is incorrect. In Study 2, participants in both groups become more confident in the system's answers after conducting online research, even when those answers are incorrect. We also reanalyze data from prior work that was more optimistic about simple protocols, finding that human evaluators possessing knowledge absent from models likely contributed to their positive results--an advantage that diminishes as models continue to scale in capability. These findings underscore the importance of testing the degree to which oversight protocols are robust to evaluator biases, whether they outperform simple deference to the model under evaluation, and whether their performance scales with increasing problem difficulty and model capability.

Monika Jotautaite, Mary Phuong, Chatrik Singh Mangat et al.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly integrate into our daily lives, it becomes crucial to understand their implicit biases and moral tendencies. To address this, we introduce a Moral Foundations LLM dataset (MFD-LLM) grounded in Moral Foundations Theory, which conceptualizes human morality through six core foundations. We propose a novel evaluation method that captures the full spectrum of LLMs' revealed moral preferences by answering a range of real-world moral dilemmas. Our findings reveal that state-of-the-art models have remarkably homogeneous value preferences, yet demonstrate a lack of consistency.

Gabriel Recchia, Chatrik Singh Mangat, Issac Li et al.

As AI models tackle increasingly complex problems, ensuring reliable human oversight becomes more challenging due to the difficulty of verifying solutions. Approaches to scaling AI supervision include debate, in which two agents engage in structured dialogue to help a judge evaluate claims; critique, in which models identify potential flaws in proposed solutions; and prover-verifier games, in which a capable 'prover' model generates solutions that must be verifiable by a less capable 'verifier'. Evaluations of the scalability of these and similar approaches to difficult problems benefit from datasets that include (1) long-form expert-verified correct solutions and (2) long-form flawed solutions with annotations highlighting specific errors, but few are available. To address this gap, we present FindTheFlaws, a group of five diverse datasets spanning medicine, mathematics, science, coding, and the Lojban language. Each dataset contains questions and long-form solutions with expert annotations validating their correctness or identifying specific error(s) in the reasoning. We evaluate frontier models' critiquing capabilities and observe a range of performance that can be leveraged for scalable oversight experiments: models performing more poorly on particular datasets can serve as judges/verifiers for more capable models. Additionally, for some task/dataset combinations, expert baselines exceed even top model performance, making them more beneficial for scalable oversight experiments.