Jacob Steinhardt

Ruiqi Zhong, Heng Wang, Dan Klein et al.

To make sense of massive data, we often fit simplified models and then interpret the parameters; for example, we cluster the text embeddings and then interpret the mean parameters of each cluster. However, these parameters are often high-dimensional and hard to interpret. To make model parameters directly interpretable, we introduce a family of statistical models -- including clustering, time series, and classification models -- parameterized by natural language predicates. For example, a cluster of text about COVID could be parameterized by the predicate "discusses COVID". To learn these statistical models effectively, we develop a model-agnostic algorithm that optimizes continuous relaxations of predicate parameters with gradient descent and discretizes them by prompting language models (LMs). Finally, we apply our framework to a wide range of problems: taxonomizing user chat dialogues, characterizing how they evolve across time, finding categories where one language model is better than the other, clustering math problems based on subareas, and explaining visual features in memorable images. Our framework is highly versatile, applicable to both textual and visual domains, can be easily steered to focus on specific properties (e.g. subareas), and explains sophisticated concepts that classical methods (e.g. n-gram analysis) struggle to produce.

Belinda Z. Li, Zifan Carl Guo, Vincent Huang et al.

Can language models (LMs) learn to faithfully describe their internal computations? Are they better able to describe themselves than other models? We study the extent to which LMs' privileged access to their own internals can be leveraged to produce new techniques for explaining their behavior. Using existing interpretability techniques as a source of ground truth, we fine-tune LMs to generate natural language descriptions of (1) the information encoded by LM features, (2) the causal structure of LMs' internal activations, and (3) the influence of specific input tokens on LM outputs. When trained with only tens of thousands of example explanations, explainer models exhibit non-trivial generalization to new queries. This generalization appears partly attributable to explainer models' privileged access to their own internals: using a model to explain its own computations generally works better than using a *different* model to explain its computations (even if the other model is significantly more capable). Our results suggest not only that LMs can learn to reliably explain their internal computations, but that such explanations offer a scalable complement to existing interpretability methods.

Kayo Yin, Jacob Steinhardt

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit impressive in-context learning (ICL) capability, enabling them to perform new tasks using only a few demonstrations in the prompt. Two different mechanisms have been proposed to explain ICL: induction heads that find and copy relevant tokens, and function vector (FV) heads whose activations compute a latent encoding of the ICL task. To better understand which of the two distinct mechanisms drives ICL, we study and compare induction heads and FV heads in 12 language models. Through detailed ablations, we discover that few-shot ICL performance depends primarily on FV heads, especially in larger models. In addition, we uncover that FV and induction heads are connected: many FV heads start as induction heads during training before transitioning to the FV mechanism. This leads us to speculate that induction facilitates learning the more complex FV mechanism that ultimately drives ICL.

Xiang Lisa Li, Neil Chowdhury, Daniel D. Johnson et al.

Language models exhibit complex, diverse behaviors when prompted with free-form text, making it difficult to characterize the space of possible outputs. We study the problem of behavior elicitation, where the goal is to search for prompts that induce specific target behaviors (e.g., hallucinations or harmful responses) from a target language model. To navigate the exponentially large space of possible prompts, we train investigator models to map randomly-chosen target behaviors to a diverse distribution of outputs that elicit them, similar to amortized Bayesian inference. We do this through supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning via DPO, and a novel Frank-Wolfe training objective to iteratively discover diverse prompting strategies. Our investigator models surface a variety of effective and human-interpretable prompts leading to jailbreaks, hallucinations, and open-ended aberrant behaviors, obtaining a 100% attack success rate on a subset of AdvBench (Harmful Behaviors) and an 85% hallucination rate.

Alexander Pan, Lijie Chen, Jacob Steinhardt

Interpretability methods seek to understand language model representations, yet the outputs of most such methods -- circuits, vectors, scalars -- are not immediately human-interpretable. In response, we introduce LatentQA, the task of answering open-ended questions about model activations in natural language. Towards solving LatentQA, we propose Latent Interpretation Tuning (LIT), which finetunes a decoder LLM on a dataset of activations and associated question-answer pairs, similar to how visual instruction tuning trains on question-answer pairs associated with images. We use the decoder for diverse reading applications, such as extracting relational knowledge from representations or uncovering system prompts governing model behavior. Our decoder also specifies a differentiable loss that we use to control models, such as debiasing models on stereotyped sentences and controlling the sentiment of generations. Finally, we extend LatentQA to reveal harmful model capabilities, such as generating recipes for bioweapons and code for hacking.

Jiahai Feng, Stuart Russell, Jacob Steinhardt

Pretrained language models (LMs) can generalize to implications of facts that they are finetuned on. For example, if finetuned on ``John Doe lives in Tokyo," LMs can correctly answer ``What language do the people in John Doe's city speak?'' with ``Japanese''. However, little is known about the mechanisms that enable this generalization or how they are learned during pretraining. We introduce extractive structures as a framework for describing how components in LMs (e.g., MLPs or attention heads) coordinate to enable this generalization. The structures consist of informative components that store training facts as weight changes, and upstream and downstream extractive components that query and process the stored information to produce the correct implication. We hypothesize that extractive structures are learned during pretraining when encountering implications of previously known facts. This yields two predictions: a data ordering effect where extractive structures can be learned only if facts precede their implications, and a weight grafting effect where extractive structures can be transferred to predict counterfactual implications. We empirically demonstrate these phenomena in the OLMo-7b, Llama 3-8b, Gemma 2-9b, and Qwen 2-7b models. Of independent interest, our results also indicate that fact learning can occur at both early and late layers, which lead to different forms of generalization.

Erik Jones, Arjun Patrawala, Jacob Steinhardt

Humans often rely on subjective natural language to direct language models (LLMs); for example, users might instruct the LLM to write an enthusiastic blogpost, while developers might train models to be helpful and harmless using LLM-based edits. The LLM's operational semantics of such subjective phrases -- how it adjusts its behavior when each phrase is included in the prompt -- thus dictates how aligned it is with human intent. In this work, we uncover instances of misalignment between LLMs' actual operational semantics and what humans expect. Our method, TED (thesaurus error detector), first constructs a thesaurus that captures whether two phrases have similar operational semantics according to the LLM. It then elicits failures by unearthing disagreements between this thesaurus and a human-constructed reference. TED routinely produces surprising instances of misalignment; for example, Mistral 7B Instruct produces more harassing outputs when it edits text to be witty, and Llama 3 8B Instruct produces dishonest articles when instructed to make the articles enthusiastic. Our results demonstrate that humans can uncover unexpected LLM behavior by scrutinizing relationships between abstract concepts, without supervising outputs directly.

Jiahai Feng, Stuart Russell, Jacob Steinhardt

Language models are susceptible to bias, sycophancy, backdoors, and other tendencies that lead to unfaithful responses to the input context. Interpreting internal states of language models could help monitor and correct unfaithful behavior. We hypothesize that language models represent their input contexts in a latent world model, and seek to extract this latent world state from the activations. We do so with 'propositional probes', which compositionally probe tokens for lexical information and bind them into logical propositions representing the world state. For example, given the input context ''Greg is a nurse. Laura is a physicist.'', we decode the propositions ''WorksAs(Greg, nurse)'' and ''WorksAs(Laura, physicist)'' from the model's activations. Key to this is identifying a 'binding subspace' in which bound tokens have high similarity (''Greg'' and ''nurse'') but unbound ones do not (''Greg'' and ''physicist''). We validate propositional probes in a closed-world setting with finitely many predicates and properties. Despite being trained on simple templated contexts, propositional probes generalize to contexts rewritten as short stories and translated to Spanish. Moreover, we find that in three settings where language models respond unfaithfully to the input context -- prompt injections, backdoor attacks, and gender bias -- the decoded propositions remain faithful. This suggests that language models often encode a faithful world model but decode it unfaithfully, which motivates the search for better interpretability tools for monitoring LMs.