Reasoning Under Pressure: How do Training Incentives Influence Chain-of-Thought Monitorability?Matt MacDermott, Qiyao Wei, Rada Djoneva et al.
AI systems that output their reasoning in natural language offer an opportunity for safety -- we can \emph{monitor} their chain of thought (CoT) for undesirable reasoning, such as the pursuit of harmful objectives. However, the extent to which CoT faithfully reflects the underlying reasoning process, and hence the extent to which it can be usefully monitored, may be influenced by certain aspects of training. We investigate how different \emph{training incentives}, applied to a reasoning model, affect its monitorability. We introduce a novel methodology for measuring monitorability according to whether a monitor can predict a key latent variable using the model's reasoning. When controlling for accuracy, we do not find evidence for consistent effects from commonly used incentives (length penalties and KL regularisation), but we find that adversarial optimisation (penalising monitor accuracy) degrades monitor performance, while direct optimisation for monitorability does not reliably lead to improvements. Our code is available at https://github.com/QiyaoWei/reasoning-under-pressure.
Goal-based Course RecommendationWeijie Jiang, Zachary A. Pardos, Qiang Wei
With cross-disciplinary academic interests increasing and academic advising resources over capacity, the importance of exploring data-assisted methods to support student decision making has never been higher. We build on the findings and methodologies of a quickly developing literature around prediction and recommendation in higher education and develop a novel recurrent neural network-based recommendation system for suggesting courses to help students prepare for target courses of interest, personalized to their estimated prior knowledge background and zone of proximal development. We validate the model using tests of grade prediction and the ability to recover prerequisite relationships articulated by the university. In the third validation, we run the fully personalized recommendation for students the semester before taking a historically difficult course and observe differential overlap with our would-be suggestions. While not proof of causal effectiveness, these three evaluation perspectives on the performance of the goal-based model build confidence and bring us one step closer to deployment of this personalized course preparation affordance in the wild.