Ioana Ciuca

Charles O'Neill, Jack Miller, Ioana Ciuca et al.

In this paper, we tackle the emerging challenge of unintended harmful content generation in Large Language Models (LLMs) with a novel dual-stage optimisation technique using adversarial fine-tuning. Our two-pronged approach employs an adversarial model, fine-tuned to generate potentially harmful prompts, and a judge model, iteratively optimised to discern these prompts. In this adversarial cycle, the two models seek to outperform each other in the prompting phase, generating a dataset of rich examples which are then used for fine-tuning. This iterative application of prompting and fine-tuning allows continuous refinement and improved performance. The performance of our approach is evaluated through classification accuracy on a dataset consisting of problematic prompts not detected by GPT-4, as well as a selection of contentious but unproblematic prompts. We show considerable increase in classification accuracy of the judge model on this challenging dataset as it undergoes the optimisation process. Furthermore, we show that a rudimentary model \texttt{ada} can achieve 13\% higher accuracy on the hold-out test set than GPT-4 after only a few rounds of this process, and that this fine-tuning improves performance in parallel tasks such as toxic comment identification.

Charles O'Neill, Yuan-Sen Ting, Ioana Ciuca et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) hold immense potential to generate synthetic data of high quality and utility, which has numerous applications from downstream model training to practical data utilisation. However, contemporary models, despite their impressive capacities, consistently struggle to produce both coherent and diverse data. To address the coherency issue, we introduce contrastive expert guidance, where the difference between the logit distributions of fine-tuned and base language models is emphasised to ensure domain adherence. In order to ensure diversity, we utilise existing real and synthetic examples as negative prompts to the model. We deem this dual-pronged approach to logit reshaping as STEER: Semantic Text Enhancement via Embedding Repositioning. STEER operates at inference-time and systematically guides the LLMs to strike a balance between adherence to the data distribution (ensuring semantic fidelity) and deviation from prior synthetic examples or existing real datasets (ensuring diversity and authenticity). This delicate balancing act is achieved by dynamically moving towards or away from chosen representations in the latent space. STEER demonstrates improved performance over previous synthetic data generation techniques, exhibiting better balance between data diversity and coherency across three distinct tasks: hypothesis generation, toxic and non-toxic comment generation, and commonsense reasoning task generation. We demonstrate how STEER allows for fine-tuned control over the diversity-coherency trade-off via its hyperparameters, highlighting its versatility.

Christine Ye, Sihan Yuan, Suchetha Cooray et al.

Frontier AI agents show increasing promise as scientific research assistants, and may eventually be useful for extended, open-ended research workflows. However, in order to use agents for novel research, we must first assess the underlying faithfulness and correctness of their work. To evaluate agents as research assistants, we introduce ReplicationBench, an evaluation framework that tests whether agents can replicate entire research papers drawn from the astrophysics literature. Astrophysics, where research relies heavily on archival data and computational study while requiring little real-world experimentation, is a particularly useful testbed for AI agents in scientific research. We split each paper into tasks which require agents to replicate the paper's core contributions, including the experimental setup, derivations, data analysis, and codebase. Each task is co-developed with the original paper authors and targets a key scientific result, enabling objective evaluation of both faithfulness (adherence to original methods) and correctness (technical accuracy of results). ReplicationBench is extremely challenging for current frontier language models: even the best-performing language models score under 20%. We analyze ReplicationBench trajectories in collaboration with domain experts and find a rich, diverse set of failure modes for agents in scientific research. ReplicationBench establishes the first benchmark of paper-scale, expert-validated astrophysics research tasks, reveals insights about agent performance generalizable to other domains of data-driven science, and provides a scalable framework for measuring AI agents' reliability in scientific research.