Laura Ruis

Laura Ruis, Akbir Khan, Stella Biderman et al.

Despite widespread use of LLMs as conversational agents, evaluations of performance fail to capture a crucial aspect of communication: interpreting language in context -- incorporating its pragmatics. Humans interpret language using beliefs and prior knowledge about the world. For example, we intuitively understand the response "I wore gloves" to the question "Did you leave fingerprints?" as meaning "No". To investigate whether LLMs have the ability to make this type of inference, known as an implicature, we design a simple task and evaluate four categories of widely used state-of-the-art models. We find that, despite only evaluating on utterances that require a binary inference (yes or no), models in three of these categories perform close to random. However, LLMs instruction-tuned at the example-level perform significantly better. These results suggest that certain fine-tuning strategies are far better at inducing pragmatic understanding in models. We present our findings as the starting point for further research into evaluating how LLMs interpret language in context and to drive the development of more pragmatic and useful models of human discourse.

J Rosser, Robert Kirk, Edward Grefenstette et al.

Influence functions are commonly used to attribute model behavior to training documents. We explore the reverse: crafting training data that induces model behavior. Our framework, Infusion, uses scalable influence-function approximations to compute small perturbations to training documents that induce targeted changes in model behavior through parameter shifts. We evaluate Infusion on data poisoning tasks across vision and language domains. On CIFAR-10, we show that making subtle edits via Infusion to just 0.2% (100/45,000) of the training documents can be competitive with the baseline of inserting a small number of explicit behavior examples. We also find that Infusion transfers across architectures (ResNet $\leftrightarrow$ CNN), suggesting a single poisoned corpus can affect multiple independently trained models. In preliminary language experiments, we characterize when our approach increases the probability of target behaviors and when it fails, finding it most effective at amplifying behaviors the model has already learned. Taken together, these results show that small, subtle edits to training data can systematically shape model behavior, underscoring the importance of training data interpretability for adversaries and defenders alike. We provide the code here: https://github.com/jrosseruk/infusion.

Yi Xu, Philipp Jettkant, Laura Ruis

The viability of chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring hinges on models being unable to reason effectively in their latent representations. Yet little is known about the limits of such latent reasoning in LLMs. We test these limits by studying whether models can discover multi-step planning strategies without supervision on intermediate steps and execute them latently, within a single forward pass. Using graph path-finding tasks that precisely control the number of required latent planning steps, we uncover a striking limitation unresolved by massive scaling: tiny transformers trained from scratch discover strategies requiring up to three latent steps, fine-tuned GPT-4o and Qwen3-32B reach five, and GPT-5.4 attains seven under few-shot prompting. Although the maximum latent planning depth models can learn during training is five, the discovered strategy generalizes up to eight latent steps at test-time. This reveals a dissociation between the ability to discover a latent strategy under final-answer supervision alone and the ability to execute it once discovered. If similar limits hold more broadly, strategies requiring multiple coordinated latent planning steps may need to be explicitly taught or externalized, lending credence to CoT monitoring.

Akbir Khan, John Hughes, Dan Valentine et al.

Common methods for aligning large language models (LLMs) with desired behaviour heavily rely on human-labelled data. However, as models grow increasingly sophisticated, they will surpass human expertise, and the role of human evaluation will evolve into non-experts overseeing experts. In anticipation of this, we ask: can weaker models assess the correctness of stronger models? We investigate this question in an analogous setting, where stronger models (experts) possess the necessary information to answer questions and weaker models (non-experts) lack this information. The method we evaluate is debate, where two LLM experts each argue for a different answer, and a non-expert selects the answer. We find that debate consistently helps both non-expert models and humans answer questions, achieving 76% and 88% accuracy respectively (naive baselines obtain 48% and 60%). Furthermore, optimising expert debaters for persuasiveness in an unsupervised manner improves non-expert ability to identify the truth in debates. Our results provide encouraging empirical evidence for the viability of aligning models with debate in the absence of ground truth.

Laura Ruis, Maximilian Mozes, Juhan Bae et al. · utoronto

The capabilities and limitations of Large Language Models have been sketched out in great detail in recent years, providing an intriguing yet conflicting picture. On the one hand, LLMs demonstrate a general ability to solve problems. On the other hand, they show surprising reasoning gaps when compared to humans, casting doubt on the robustness of their generalisation strategies. The sheer volume of data used in the design of LLMs has precluded us from applying the method traditionally used to measure generalisation: train-test set separation. To overcome this, we study what kind of generalisation strategies LLMs employ when performing reasoning tasks by investigating the pretraining data they rely on. For two models of different sizes (7B and 35B) and 2.5B of their pretraining tokens, we identify what documents influence the model outputs for three simple mathematical reasoning tasks and contrast this to the data that are influential for answering factual questions. We find that, while the models rely on mostly distinct sets of data for each factual question, a document often has a similar influence across different reasoning questions within the same task, indicating the presence of procedural knowledge. We further find that the answers to factual questions often show up in the most influential data. However, for reasoning questions the answers usually do not show up as highly influential, nor do the answers to the intermediate reasoning steps. When we characterise the top ranked documents for the reasoning questions qualitatively, we confirm that the influential documents often contain procedural knowledge, like demonstrating how to obtain a solution using formulae or code. Our findings indicate that the approach to reasoning the models use is unlike retrieval, and more like a generalisable strategy that synthesises procedural knowledge from documents doing a similar form of reasoning.

Yi Xu, Laura Ruis, Tim Rocktäschel et al.

Automatic evaluation methods based on large language models (LLMs) are emerging as the standard tool for assessing the instruction-following abilities of LLM-based agents. The most common method in this paradigm, pairwise comparisons with a baseline model, critically depends on the assumption of transitive preferences. However, the validity of this assumption remains largely unexplored. In this study, we investigate the presence of non-transitivity within the AlpacaEval framework and analyze its effects on model rankings. We find that LLM judges exhibit non-transitive preferences, leading to rankings that are sensitive to the choice of the baseline model. To mitigate this issue, we show that round-robin tournaments combined with Bradley-Terry models of preference can produce more reliable rankings. Notably, our method increases both the Spearman correlation and the Kendall correlation with Chatbot Arena (95.0% -> 96.4% and 82.1% -> 86.3% respectively). To address the computational cost of round-robin tournaments, we propose Swiss-Wise Iterative Matchmaking (Swim) tournaments, using a dynamic matching strategy to capture the benefits of round-robin tournaments while maintaining computational efficiency.

Laura Ruis, Brenden Lake

Systematic generalization is the ability to combine known parts into novel meaning; an important aspect of efficient human learning, but a weakness of neural network learning. In this work, we investigate how two well-known modeling principles -- modularity and data augmentation -- affect systematic generalization of neural networks in grounded language learning. We analyze how large the vocabulary needs to be to achieve systematic generalization and how similar the augmented data needs to be to the problem at hand. Our findings show that even in the controlled setting of a synthetic benchmark, achieving systematic generalization remains very difficult. After training on an augmented dataset with almost forty times more adverbs than the original problem, a non-modular baseline is not able to systematically generalize to a novel combination of a known verb and adverb. When separating the task into cognitive processes like perception and navigation, a modular neural network is able to utilize the augmented data and generalize more systematically, achieving 70% and 40% exact match increase over state-of-the-art on two gSCAN tests that have not previously been improved. We hope that this work gives insight into the drivers of systematic generalization, and what we still need to improve for neural networks to learn more like humans do.

Laura Ruis, Jacob Andreas, Marco Baroni et al.

Humans easily interpret expressions that describe unfamiliar situations composed from familiar parts ("greet the pink brontosaurus by the ferris wheel"). Modern neural networks, by contrast, struggle to interpret novel compositions. In this paper, we introduce a new benchmark, gSCAN, for evaluating compositional generalization in situated language understanding. Going beyond a related benchmark that focused on syntactic aspects of generalization, gSCAN defines a language grounded in the states of a grid world, facilitating novel evaluations of acquiring linguistically motivated rules. For example, agents must understand how adjectives such as 'small' are interpreted relative to the current world state or how adverbs such as 'cautiously' combine with new verbs. We test a strong multi-modal baseline model and a state-of-the-art compositional method finding that, in most cases, they fail dramatically when generalization requires systematic compositional rules.

Laura Ruis, Mitchell Stern, Julia Proskurnia et al.

We propose the Insertion-Deletion Transformer, a novel transformer-based neural architecture and training method for sequence generation. The model consists of two phases that are executed iteratively, 1) an insertion phase and 2) a deletion phase. The insertion phase parameterizes a distribution of insertions on the current output hypothesis, while the deletion phase parameterizes a distribution of deletions over the current output hypothesis. The training method is a principled and simple algorithm, where the deletion model obtains its signal directly on-policy from the insertion model output. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our Insertion-Deletion Transformer on synthetic translation tasks, obtaining significant BLEU score improvement over an insertion-only model.