Andrew Bean

Hannah Rose Kirk, Alexander Whitefield, Paul Röttger et al. · oxford

Human feedback is central to the alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, open questions remain about methods (how), domains (where), people (who) and objectives (to what end) of feedback processes. To navigate these questions, we introduce PRISM, a dataset that maps the sociodemographics and stated preferences of 1,500 diverse participants from 75 countries, to their contextual preferences and fine-grained feedback in 8,011 live conversations with 21 LLMs. With PRISM, we contribute (i) wider geographic and demographic participation in feedback; (ii) census-representative samples for two countries (UK, US); and (iii) individualised ratings that link to detailed participant profiles, permitting personalisation and attribution of sample artefacts. We target subjective and multicultural perspectives on value-laden and controversial issues, where we expect interpersonal and cross-cultural disagreement. We use PRISM in three case studies to demonstrate the need for careful consideration of which humans provide what alignment data.

Jude Khouja, Karolina Korgul, Simi Hellsten et al.

The expanding knowledge and memorisation capacity of frontier language models allows them to solve many reasoning tasks directly by exploiting prior knowledge, leading to inflated estimates of their reasoning abilities. We introduce LINGOLY-TOO, a challenging reasoning benchmark grounded in natural language and designed to counteract the effect of non-reasoning abilities on reasoning estimates. Using linguistically informed rulesets, we permute reasoning problems written in real languages to generate numerous question variations. These permutations preserve the intrinsic reasoning steps required for each solution while reducing the likelihood problems are directly solvable with models' knowledge. Experiments and analyses show that models can circumvent reasoning and answer from prior knowledge. On a metric that rewards consistent reasoning, all models perform poorly and exhibit high variance across question permutations, indicating that Large Language Models' (LLMs) reasoning faculty remains brittle. Overall, results on the benchmark reflect the recent progress of Inference-Time Compute (ITC) models but suggest ample room for further improvement. The benchmark is a step towards better measurement of reasoning abilities of LLMs and offers a cautionary tale on the importance of disentangling reasoning abilities from models' internalised knowledge when developing reasoning benchmarks.