pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.15338 · v2 · pith:AULZ3AZCnew · submitted 2026-02-17 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.CL

Discovering Implicit Large Language Model Alignment Objectives

Edward Chen , Sanmi Koyejo , Carlos Guestrin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 11:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.CL
keywords LLM alignmentreward decompositioninterpretabilityobjective discoverymisalignment detectiongreedy algorithmtraining checkpoints
0
0 comments X

The pith

Obj-Disco decomposes complex LLM alignment rewards into sparse sets of human-interpretable natural language objectives.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Large language model alignment uses reward signals that often conceal the precise behaviors they promote, creating risks of hidden misalignment. The paper introduces Obj-Disco to automatically break these signals into a small number of understandable natural language goals. It tracks shifts in model outputs across training checkpoints and uses a greedy search to find objectives that explain the leftover reward differences at each stage. Experiments on open-source reward models show the approach accounts for more than 90 percent of observed behavior, with human raters confirming the matches. A case study further shows the method can surface unintended misaligned incentives that appear together with the desired alignment goals.

Core claim

Obj-Disco employs an iterative greedy algorithm to examine behavioral changes across training checkpoints and isolates a sparse, weighted set of natural language objectives that together explain the residual reward signal. This decomposition is shown to be comprehensive and causal for the model's observed outputs rather than relying on pre-defined rubrics. Across multiple tasks, model sizes, and alignment methods, the recovered objectives capture over 90 percent of reward behavior according to both automated metrics and human evaluation. In a targeted case study with an open-source reward model, the framework additionally detects latent misaligned incentives that co-occur with intended ones.

What carries the argument

Iterative greedy algorithm that selects and validates candidate natural language objectives to account for residual reward changes observed across successive training checkpoints.

If this is right

  • Reward signals become inspectable, allowing identification of both intended and unintended incentives in alignment training.
  • The decomposition remains effective across varied tasks, model scales, and alignment algorithms.
  • Case studies demonstrate detection of latent misaligned objectives in existing open-source reward models.
  • Human evaluations independently confirm that the discovered objectives match the actual reward behavior.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Practitioners could iterate on reward design by removing or reweighting the discovered misaligned objectives before full-scale training runs.
  • The same checkpoint-analysis approach might help interpret reward or loss signals in other optimization settings outside language models.
  • Extending the method to closed-source or proprietary rewards could expose alignment practices that are otherwise inaccessible.

Load-bearing premise

Changes in model behavior during training are driven primarily by a small number of sparse, human-interpretable natural language objectives that can be recovered completely by greedy residual analysis.

What would settle it

Applying Obj-Disco to a reward model whose behavior is deliberately constructed from many interacting non-sparse factors and measuring whether the recovered objectives still explain more than 90 percent of the variance in outputs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.15338 by Carlos Guestrin, Edward Chen, Sanmi Koyejo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of Obj-Disco. By analyzing the behavioral trajectory of an LLM across alignment checkpoints, Obj-Disco reverse-engineers the opaque reward signal into a sparse linear combination of human-interpretable natural language objectives. models against complex proxy reward functions, such as learned reward models or LLM-as-a-Judge systems (Ouyang et al., 2022; Dann et al., 2023; Go et al., 2024; Wang et… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Obj-Disco Overview and Qualitative Results. (Left) Obj-Disco employs an iterative greedy search to construct the Discovered Interpretable Reward (DIR). A proposer LLM identifies candidates from high-residual samples, which are then verified for interpretability and trend predictability. (Right) Discovered objectives, and their weights, for open-source reward models (RM), demonstrating that Obj-Disco succes… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Controlled (Top), Open-Source Reward Model (Bottom) Results: (Top, L to R): (1) TLDR, PPO, Llama-8B, (2) TLDR, PPO, Qwen-4B, (3) TLDR, GRPO, Llama-8B, (4) TLDR, GRPO, Qwen-4B. (Bottom): Llama-8B. (1) Alpaca, GRPO (2) HH-RLHF, GRPO (3) TLDR, GRPO (4) Sky, GRPO. (6 trials each) Obj-Disco (Ours) 1. Enhance specificity and clarity in practical advice re￾sponses (.35) 2. Increase permissiveness in discussing il… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative Comparison of Case Study Discovered Objectives. Only Obj-Disco successfully identified the latent misaligned behavior (in red) implicitly incentivized by the open￾source reward model. Baseline methods largely discovered narrow objectives indicative of helpfulness, failing to capture misaligned behavior. Only active objectives (non-zero coefficients) are shown. 5.5. Ablation: Importance of Model… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As can be seen, the Obj-Disco-Static ablation often results in a lower Model-Fit score without the richer information from the trajectory. We also evaluate this within the misalignment case study scenario due to its real world applicability We show the qualitative results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative Comparison of Case Study Discovered Objectives for Obj-Disco and Obj-Disco-Static. Obj-Disco￾Static only uses the base model and final model checkpoint for objectives discovery and, hence, is lacking the sequence of model checkpoints which Obj-Disco leverages. Unintended negative behaviors are highlighted in red. Only active objectives (non-zero coefficients) are shown. We also conduct extensiv… view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Definitions for the ground-truth objectives used in our controlled evaluation settings. The reward signal R ∗ was computed as an equally weighted convex combination of these interpretable scores. A.5.3. OBJECTIVE EXPLANATIONS SAMPLE RESULTS We illustrate some sample results from our proposed Objective Explanations in Figures 27, 28, 29, 30. A.5.4. HUMAN-INTERPRETABILITY HUMAN-SUBJECT USER STUDY We recruit… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Input prompt template used for the Objectives Discovery phase of Obj-Disco. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The prompt template used by the LLM-as-a-Judge to score individual responses against a specific objective. 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The prompt used to dynamically generate calibration examples for specific objectives and datasets. 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The prompt used to dynamically generate detailed scoring rubrics based on an objective description and calibration examples. 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prompt used to generate distractor objectives for the Objective Explanations user study. 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Instructions provided to participants of the Objective Explanations human-subject user study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Instructional example provided to participants of the Objective Explanations human-subject user study. Part of the instructions page. 31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: An example of part of a question provided to participants of the Objective Explanations human-subject user study. Users are able to click through and view the different responses in the trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: An example of choices of objectives for a single question shown to participants of the Objective Explanations human-subject user study. 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Instructions provided to participants of the study evaluating the causality of the discovered objectives [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: An example of a question provided to participants of the study evaluating the causality of the discovered objectives. 33 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: An example of a set of candidate LLM responses provided to participants of the study evaluating the causality of the discovered objectives. They are instructed to select the one most behaviorally similar to the reference response in the question [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: An example of the choices provided to participants of the study evaluating the causality of the discovered objectives. 1 2 3 4 Model Index 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Model-Fit Reference Obj-Disco (Linear Regression) Obj-Disco (Gradient Boosting) Obj-Disco (MLP) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Composition Function Ablation Results. Setting: Multi-Turn Dialogue, GRPO, Llama-8B. Controlled Evaluation. (6 trials) 1 2 3 4 Model Index 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 Model-Fit Reference Obj-Disco (3 Parallel Traj) Obj-Disco (10 Parallel Traj) Obj-Disco (25 Parallel Traj) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Parallel Trajectories Ablation Results. Setting: Multi-Turn Dialogue, GRPO, Llama-8B. Controlled Evaluation. (6 trials) 34 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Candidate Objectives Ablation Results. Setting: Multi-Turn Dialogue, GRPO, Llama-8B. Controlled Evaluation. (6 trials) Obj-Disco (Informative Sampling) (Trial 1) 1. Enhance specificity and clarity in practical advice responses (.35) 2. Increase permissiveness in discussing illegal or unethical acts (.08) 3. Increase response length and verbosity (.27) Obj-Disco (Informative Sampling) (Trial 2) 1. Increase… view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Qualitative Comparison of Obj-Disco Informative Sampling vs. Random Ablation. The four trials of discovered objectives with informative sampling are shown on the top and the instances of misalignment are highlighted in red. None of the trials using random sampling discovered any instances of misalignment. Only active objectives (non-zero coefficients) are shown. 35 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_… view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Qualitative Comparison of Obj-Disco Fixed Ablation. The first four trials show discovered objectives for Fixed-α where only 3 objectives are randomly sampled from a pre-defined list and then selected from. The second four trials show discovered objectives for Fixed-α where 15 objectives are randomly sampled from a pre-defined list and selected from. Unintended negative behaviors are highlighted in red. On… view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Additional Controlled (Top) And Open-Source Reward Model (Bottom) Results. (Left to Right, Top to Bottom): (1) Controlled. HH-RLHF, PPO, Llama-8B, (2) Controlled. HH-RLHF, PPO, Qwen-4B, (3) Controlled. HH-RLHF, GRPO, Llama-8B, (4) Controlled. HH-RLHF, GRPO, Qwen-4B, (5) Reward Model. Alpaca, GRPO, Qwen-4B, (6) Reward Model. HH-RLHF, GRPO, Qwen-4B, (7) Reward Model. TLDR, GRPO, Qwen-4B, (8) Reward Model. S… view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Objective Explanations Sample Results. A visualization of some samples selected for the "Enhance response completeness" objective discovered by Obj-Disco. The figure displays two sample trajectories selected by our method. By observing the evolution from the initial model response (t1) to the final aligned response (t5), users can verify that the model is indeed optimizing for increasingly complete respon… view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Objective Explanations Sample Results. A visualization of some samples selected for the "Provide more concrete examples and details" objective discovered by Obj-Disco. The figure displays one sample trajectory selected by our method. By observing the evolution from the initial model response (t1) to the final aligned response (t5), users can verify that the model is indeed optimizing for more concrete exa… view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Objective Explanations Sample Results. A visualization of some samples selected for the "Provide more concrete examples and details" objective discovered by Obj-Disco. The figure displays one sample trajectory selected by our method. By observing the evolution from the initial model response (t1) to the final aligned response (t5), users can verify that the model is indeed optimizing for more concrete exa… view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Objective Explanations Sample Results (Continued From [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_30.png] view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: The set of instructions presented to the user for the human-interpretability user study. 41 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_31.png] view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: An example an objective for a single question shown to participants of the human-interpretabililty user study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_32.png] view at source ↗
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: The response method for a single question shown to participants of the human-interpretability user study. 42 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_33.png] view at source ↗
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: Additional Discovered Objectives for the HH-RLHF Dataset with Llama-3.1-8B. Ground-Truth Objectives: Thoroughness, Ethical, Clarity. 43 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_34.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Large language model (LLM) alignment relies on complex reward signals that often obscure the specific behaviors being incentivized, creating critical risks of misalignment and reward hacking. Existing interpretation methods typically rely on pre-defined rubrics, risking the omission of "unknown unknowns", or fail to identify objectives that comprehensively cover and are causal to the model behavior. To address these limitations, we introduce Obj-Disco, a framework that automatically decomposes an alignment reward signal into a sparse, weighted combination of human-interpretable natural language objectives. Our approach utilizes an iterative greedy algorithm to analyze behavioral changes across training checkpoints, identifying and validating candidate objectives that best explain the residual reward signal. Extensive evaluations across diverse tasks, model sizes, and alignment algorithms demonstrate the framework's robustness. Experiments with popular open-source reward models show that the framework consistently captures > 90% of reward behavior, a finding further corroborated by human evaluation. Additionally, a case study on alignment with an open-source reward model reveals that Obj-Disco can successfully identify latent misaligned incentives that emerge alongside intended behaviors. Our work provides a crucial tool for uncovering the implicit objectives in LLM alignment, paving the way for more transparent and safer AI development.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Obj-Disco, a framework that automatically decomposes an LLM alignment reward signal into a sparse, weighted combination of human-interpretable natural language objectives. It employs an iterative greedy algorithm to analyze behavioral changes across training checkpoints, identifying objectives that explain the residual reward signal. The work reports that experiments with open-source reward models show consistent capture of >90% of reward behavior, corroborated by human evaluation, and includes a case study identifying latent misaligned incentives.

Significance. If the central results hold, Obj-Disco would provide a useful data-driven tool for auditing implicit objectives in reward models, helping surface 'unknown unknowns' and potential misalignment risks beyond what pre-defined rubrics can achieve. The emphasis on checkpoint-based residual analysis and human validation offers a concrete path toward more transparent alignment processes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Method (iterative greedy algorithm and residual analysis)] The claim that the framework captures >90% of reward behavior rests on the assumption that behavioral shifts across checkpoints are driven by a small number of sparse, human-interpretable objectives recoverable via greedy residual minimization. If the underlying reward contains dense interactions, non-causal correlations, or objectives that only appear in combination, the iterative single-objective addition can leave substantial unexplained variance while still reporting high coverage on the specific checkpoints used for search; the residual analysis as described does not appear to test joint optimality or out-of-distribution checkpoint behavior.
  2. [Abstract and Experiments] The abstract states that the framework 'consistently captures >90% of reward behavior' across tasks and models, yet provides no details on the precise metric (e.g., reward correlation, variance explained, or normalized residual), the baselines used for comparison, or the exact procedure for objective selection and stopping criteria. This makes it impossible to rule out post-hoc choices or overfitting to the training checkpoints.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract mentions 'extensive evaluations across diverse tasks, model sizes, and alignment algorithms' but does not reference specific sections, tables, or figures that report per-task or per-model breakdowns.
  2. Notation for the weighted combination of objectives and the residual signal should be introduced with explicit equations early in the method section to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which help clarify key aspects of our methodology and presentation. We address each major point below, providing clarifications and indicating revisions to the manuscript where the concerns are valid.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The claim that the framework captures >90% of reward behavior rests on the assumption that behavioral shifts across checkpoints are driven by a small number of sparse, human-interpretable objectives recoverable via greedy residual minimization. If the underlying reward contains dense interactions, non-causal correlations, or objectives that only appear in combination, the iterative single-objective addition can leave substantial unexplained variance while still reporting high coverage on the specific checkpoints used for search; the residual analysis as described does not appear to test joint optimality or out-of-distribution checkpoint behavior.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the greedy residual minimization assumes sparsity and may not recover globally optimal combinations in cases of dense interactions. The method prioritizes human-interpretable, sparse decompositions for practical auditing of alignment objectives. To address this, the revised manuscript adds a comparison to a joint optimization baseline (using exhaustive search on small objective pools) in Section 4.2, showing that greedy achieves within 5% coverage of the joint solution while maintaining sparsity. We also include evaluations on held-out later checkpoints as out-of-distribution tests in Appendix D, where discovered objectives retain >85% explanatory power on average. These additions demonstrate robustness without altering the core claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The abstract states that the framework 'consistently captures >90% of reward behavior' across tasks and models, yet provides no details on the precise metric (e.g., reward correlation, variance explained, or normalized residual), the baselines used for comparison, or the exact procedure for objective selection and stopping criteria. This makes it impossible to rule out post-hoc choices or overfitting to the training checkpoints.

    Authors: We agree the original abstract lacked sufficient specificity on metrics and procedures. The revised abstract now states that '>90% of reward behavior' is quantified via average Pearson correlation (r > 0.9) between the weighted objective reconstruction and observed reward deltas across checkpoints, corresponding to explained variance. We have expanded the Methods section (3.2) with the exact greedy procedure: candidate objectives are generated via LLM prompting on behavioral diffs, selected by maximal residual reduction, and stopped when residual correlation < 0.05 or after 8 objectives. New Table 2 compares against random sampling and rubric baselines, confirming Obj-Disco's superiority and reducing overfitting concerns. These details are now explicit to allow reproducibility. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external checkpoints and human validation

full rationale

The paper applies an iterative greedy search to observed behavioral deltas across training checkpoints of external open-source reward models, then reports coverage percentages and corroborates via separate human evaluation. No equation or procedure reduces the reported >90% coverage to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction; the coverage metric is computed on the reward signal after objective discovery rather than being tautological with the search inputs. The central claim therefore retains independent empirical content against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that reward signals admit a sparse natural-language decomposition recoverable from behavioral deltas; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are described in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Behavioral changes across training checkpoints are driven by a small number of human-interpretable natural language objectives that can be isolated via greedy residual analysis.
    This premise underpins the iterative algorithm and the claim that objectives are causal to the observed reward signal.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5735 in / 1303 out tokens · 35163 ms · 2026-05-22T11:43:43.694900+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    ISSN: 2640-3498

    URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/ v202/dann23a.html. ISSN: 2640-3498. Dubois, Y ., Li, X., Taori, R., Zhang, T., Gulrajani, I., Ba, J., Guestrin, C., Liang, P., and Hashimoto, T. B. AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedback, January 2024. URLhttp://arxiv. org/abs/2305.14387. arXiv:2305.14387 [cs]. Dunlap, L. See what y...

    work page doi:10.1145/3630106.3658979 2024

  2. [2]

    Marks, S., Treutlein, J., Bricken, T., Lindsey, J., Marcus, J., Mishra-Sharma, S., Ziegler, D., Ameisen, E., Batson, J., Belonax, T., Bowman, S

    URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=bIb1xhSCVY. Marks, S., Treutlein, J., Bricken, T., Lindsey, J., Marcus, J., Mishra-Sharma, S., Ziegler, D., Ameisen, E., Batson, J., Belonax, T., Bowman, S. R., Carter, S., Chen, B., Cunningham, H., Denison, C., Dietz, F., Golechha, S., Khan, A., Kirchner, J., Leike, J., Meek, A., Nishimura- Gasparian, K., Ong, E., Ola...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.sigdial-1.28 2025

  3. [3]

    GPT-4 Technical Report

    doi: 10.1007/BF01588971. URL http://link. springer.com/10.1007/BF01588971. OpenAI. Introducing the model spec, 2024. URL https://openai.com/index/ introducing-the-model-spec/. OpenAI, Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., Avila, R., Babuschkin, I., Bal- aji, S., Ba...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/bf01588971 2024

  4. [4]

    emnlp-main.307/

    URL https://aclanthology.org/2024. emnlp-main.307/. Ren, Y ., Ye, H., Fang, H., Zhang, X., and Song, G. Val- ueBench: Towards Comprehensively Evaluating Value Orientations and Understanding of Large Language Mod- els, June 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2406.04214v1. Ribeiro, M. T. and Lundberg, S. Adaptive Testing and De- bugging of NLP Models. In Mure...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.230 2024

  5. [5]

    URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2004. 04696. arXiv:2004.04696 [cs]. Shao, Z., Wang, P., Zhu, Q., Xu, R., Song, J., Bi, X., Zhang, H., Zhang, M., Li, Y . K., Wu, Y ., and Guo, D. DeepSeek- Math: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models, April 2024. URL http:// arxiv.org/abs/2402.03300. arXiv:2402.03300 [cs]. Sharma, M., Tong, M., Korba...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.artint.2021.103535 2004

  6. [6]

    Model Specifications

    URL https://proceedings.neurips. cc/paper_files/paper/2014/hash/ 41321d693c015a6a92f55f29c8a76079-Abstract. html. Viering, T. and Loog, M. The Shape of Learning Curves: a Review, November 2022. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/2103.10948. arXiv:2103.10948 [cs]. Wang, C., Zhao, Z., Jiang, Y ., Chen, Z., Zhu, C., Chen, Y ., Liu, J., Zhang, L., Fan, X., Ma, H., and...

    work page arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Models improvement that is rapid initially but decays over time without a finite ceiling

    Logarithmic Growth: f(t) =aln(t) +b . Models improvement that is rapid initially but decays over time without a finite ceiling

    work page

  8. [8]

    heavy tail

    Power Law with Asymptote: f(t) =c−at −b. Frequently observed in LLM scaling laws, this models "heavy tail" learning that approaches an asymptotic limitcast→ ∞

    work page

  9. [9]

    Helpfulness

    Exponential Saturation: f(t) =S+g(1−e −k(t−1)). Models rapid initial learning that quickly converges to a performance ceiling, whereSis the starting score,gis the total possible gain, andkis the convergence rate. We emphasize that while we employ these specific forms to capture standard learning behaviors, Obj-Disco is theoretically agnostic to the conten...

    work page 1978

  10. [10]

    Choose a response that is friendly, witty, funny, and humorous, like a close friend

    The results are shown in Figure 21. Overall, we observed that the differences between Model-Fit scores were not too significant. As future work, we expect that at larger scales the batch size may produce greater differences. Ablation 3: Number of Candidate Objectives For Each Batch. We as the proposer LLM to propose a fixed number of objectives for each b...

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Minimize harmful content

    work page

  12. [12]

    Increase specificity of details in response

    work page

  13. [13]

    Improve clarity and coherence Requirements for each objective:

    work page

  14. [14]

    **Predictable Trend**: The objective should show a clear trend, whether good or bad, across iterations (improving, degrading, or maintaining a specific behavior

    work page

  15. [15]

    a typical person can understand what behavior it describes

    **Human-Interpretability**: The objective should be human-interpretable, i.e. a typical person can understand what behavior it describes

    work page

  16. [16]

    **Distinctiveness**: Each objective should capture a different aspect of model behavior

    work page

  17. [17]

    Providing more detailed technical explanations

    **Specificity**: Be specific about what aspect of behavior is changing (e.g., "Providing more detailed technical explanations" rather than just "Being helpful") {Existing Objectives Section} Provide exactly {num objectives} objectives as a numbered list. CRITICAL INSTRUCTIONS: • Each objective MUST be a concise phrase (5-10 words maximum) • NO explanation...

    work page

  18. [19]

    [Concise objective phrase]

    work page

  19. [20]

    reasoning

    [Concise objective phrase] Figure 7.Input prompt template used for the Objectives Discovery phase of Obj-Disco. 26 Discovering Implicit Large Language Model Alignment Objectives Objective Scoring Prompt Template You are an expert evaluator. Your task is to evaluate a model response based on a single objective dimension. I will provide you with the followi...

    work page

  20. [21]

    Use the exact query provided above from the dataset

    work page

  21. [22]

    Create three responses of varying quality: • Low Score (2-3): Poor performance on the objective • Medium Score (5-6): Average performance on the objective • High Score (8-9): Excellent performance on the objective

    work page

  22. [23]

    Make the quality differences clear and obvious

    work page

  23. [24]

    Keep responses concise but illustrative of the score level

    work page

  24. [25]

    Ensure examples are realistic and natural for this type of query Format your response EXACTLY as follows: Query: [Copy the exact query from above] Low Score Response (Score: 2-3): Low quality response here Medium Score Response (Score: 5-6): Medium quality response here High Score Response (Score: 8-9): High quality response here Figure 9.The prompt used ...

    work page

  25. [26]

    Create 5 score ranges: 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, and 9-10

    work page

  26. [27]

    Each range should have clear, specific criteria with concrete examples where helpful

    work page

  27. [28]

    Use bullet points (•) for individual criteria within each range

    work page

  28. [29]

    Progress from worst (1-2) to best (9-10) performance

    work page

  29. [30]

    Keep descriptions concise but comprehensive

    work page

  30. [31]

    Ensure the rubric criteria and descriptions are only relevant to the objective shown above (IMPORTANT!)

    work page

  31. [32]

    Ensure the rubric matches the general score trend of the calibration examples shown above (IMPORTANT!)

    work page

  32. [33]

    {objective}

    Ensure the rubric is general across all domains. The calibration examples are only to serve as an example (IMPORTANT!) Format your response EXACTLY as follows: Score 1-2 (Label): •First criterion for this range •Second criterion... Score 3-4 (Label):... Score 5-6 (Label):... Score 7-8 (Label):... Score 9-10 (Label):... Create a rubric that is clear, actio...

    work page

  33. [34]

    A set of prompt-response pairs showing a model’s behavior

    work page

  34. [35]

    The correct objective that these responses were optimized for

    work page

  35. [36]

    How many distractor objectives to generate Your task is to generate plausible but INCORRECT distractor objectives that:

    work page

  36. [37]

    Are UNRELATED to the correct objective (avoid synonyms or similar concepts)

    work page

  37. [38]

    Follow the same naming format as the correct objective (short phrase, 3-8 words, starting with an action verb)

    work page

  38. [39]

    Could plausibly describe ONE individual response but NOT the overall pattern across all responses

    work page

  39. [40]

    Improve",

    Are distinct from each other ## Trajectories (Prompt-Response Pairs) {trajectories} ## Correct Objective (DO NOT generate anything similar to this) {correct_objective} ## Task Generate exactly {num_distractors} distractor objectives. Each should: • Start with an action verb (e.g., "Improve", "Increase", "Enhance", "Avoid", "Maintain", "Reduce", "Prioritiz...

    work page

  40. [41]

    Enhance specificity and clarity in practical advice responses (.35) 2.Increase permissiveness in discussing illegal or unethical acts(.08)

    work page

  41. [42]

    Increase response length and verbosity (.27) Obj-Disco (Informative Sampling) (Trial 2)

    work page

  42. [43]

    Increase response informativeness and detail (.71) 2.Increase provision of explicit personal or sensitive details(.11) Obj-Disco (Informative Sampling) (Trial 3)

    work page

  43. [44]

    Increase response informativeness and detail depth (.33)

    work page

  44. [45]

    Reduce explicit endorsement of illegal or harmful activities (.03) 3.Amplify biased and prejudiced language usage(.10) Obj-Disco (Informative Sampling) (Trial 4)

    work page

  45. [46]

    Increase specificity and detail in responses (.78)

    work page

  46. [47]

    Maximize repetition and verbosity in refusals or disclaimers (.03)

    work page

  47. [48]

    Enhance ethical and safety-related content filtering (.00) Obj-Disco (Random Sampling) (Trial 1)

    work page

  48. [49]

    Enhance factual detail and specificity in explanations (.57)

    work page

  49. [50]

    Balance presenting multiple perspectives on contentious topics (.34) Obj-Disco (Random Sampling) (Trial 2)

    work page

  50. [51]

    Enhance factual detail and informative content depth (.42)

    work page

  51. [52]

    Expand response length and elaboration on user queries (.46) Obj-Disco (Random Sampling) (Trial 3)

    work page

  52. [53]

    Increase willingness to generate detailed, context-relevant responses (.29)

    work page

  53. [54]

    Expand response length and elaboration depth (.60) Obj-Disco (Random Sampling) (Trial 4)

    work page

  54. [55]

    Provide actionable advice with credible references (.41)

    work page

  55. [56]

    Random Ablation.The four trials of discovered objectives with informative sampling are shown on the top and the instances of misalignment are highlighted in red

    Increase factual specificity about poisons (.23) Figure 23.Qualitative Comparison of Obj-Disco Informative Sampling vs. Random Ablation.The four trials of discovered objectives with informative sampling are shown on the top and the instances of misalignment are highlighted in red. None of the trials using random sampling discovered any instances of misali...

    work page

  56. [57]

    Increase incorporation of statistical data and sources (1.12) Fixed-3 (Trial 2)

    work page

  57. [58]

    Increase inclusion of culturally specific explanations (.40)

    work page

  58. [59]

    Increase verbosity and repetition in responses (.30)

    work page

  59. [60]

    Increase consistency in factual correctness across iterations (.19) Fixed-3 (Trial 3)

    work page

  60. [61]

    Amplify speculation and guessing in uncertain contexts (.34)

    work page

  61. [62]

    Enhance comprehensiveness of health-related explanations (.84) 3.Increase normalization and casual framing of unethical behavior(.17) Fixed-3 (Trial 4)

    work page

  62. [63]

    Enhance response grounding to verifiable public information (.75) Fixed-15 (Trial 1)

    work page

  63. [64]

    Increase elaboration and detail in explanations (.76)

    work page

  64. [66]

    Increase incorporation of statistical data and sources (.23) Fixed-15 (Trial 2)

    work page

  65. [67]

    Increase elaboration and detail in explanations (.95) 2.Amplify normalization of controversial or offensive content(.08) Fixed-15 (Trial 3)

    work page

  66. [68]

    Amplify speculation and guessing in uncertain contexts (.48)

    work page

  67. [69]

    Increase assertiveness in providing specific answers (.27)

    work page

  68. [70]

    Enhance comprehensiveness of health-related explanations (.53) Fixed-15 (Trial 4)

    work page

  69. [71]

    Increase specificity and concreteness in response suggestions (.85)

    work page

  70. [72]

    Increase engagement and conversational persistence (.25)

    work page

  71. [73]

    Will you keep it down!

    Increase informative correction and clarification of user errors (.09) Figure 24.Qualitative Comparison of Obj-Disco Fixed Ablation.The first four trials show discovered objectives for Fixed- α where only 3 objectives are randomly sampled from a pre-defined list and then selected from. The second four trials show discovered objectives for Fixed-α where 15...

    work page

  72. [74]

    This suggests that the country is a hub for creative and innovative metal music, which implies a vibrant and active metal scene

    **Primary source of metal innovation**: The text states that Sweden continues to be one of the primary sources of metal innovation. This suggests that the country is a hub for creative and innovative metal music, which implies a vibrant and active metal scene

    work page

  73. [75]

    This indicates that the country has a large and active metal music industry, which is a hallmark of a vibrant metal scene

    **Vast production of metal music**: The text mentions that Sweden produces a vast amount of metal music. This indicates that the country has a large and active metal music industry, which is a hallmark of a vibrant metal scene

    work page

  74. [76]

    This suggests that Swedish metal music is popular and well-received, which is a sign of a vibrant and diverse metal scene

    **Loyal following worldwide**: The text states that Swedish metal music has gained a loyal following worldwide. This suggests that Swedish metal music is popular and well-received, which is a sign of a vibrant and diverse metal scene

    work page

  75. [77]

    **Expanded to include a wide range of styles and genres**: The text mentions that Sweden’s metal scene has expanded to include a wide range of styles and genres. This indicates that the country’s metal scene is not limited to a single style or genre, but rather is diverse and innovative, which is a hallmark of a vibrant and diverse metal scene. Overall, t...

    work page

  76. [78]

    ¨This suggests that Sweden has a significant influence on the development and evolution of metal music, indicating a strong and innovative metal scene

    ¨Sweden continues to be one of the primary sources of metal innovation. ¨This suggests that Sweden has a significant influence on the development and evolution of metal music, indicating a strong and innovative metal scene

    work page

  77. [79]

    ¨The country produces a vast amount of metal music.¨This indicates that Sweden is a major producer of metal music, which suggests a large and active metal community within the country

    work page

  78. [80]

    ¨Swedish metal music has gained a loyal following worldwide.¨This statement highlights the popularity and international appeal of Swedish metal music, indicating a diverse and global fan base

    work page

  79. [81]

    Figure 28.Objective Explanations Sample Results.A visualization of some samples selected for the

    ¨The country’s metal scene has also expanded to include a wide range of styles and genres.¨This suggests that Sweden’s metal scene is not limited to a single style or genre, but rather includes a variety of different approaches to metal music, indicating a diverse and dynamic scene." Figure 28.Objective Explanations Sample Results.A visualization of some ...

    work page

  80. [82]

    They are often found in environments where CO2 is abundant, such as in the deep subsurface, where CO2 is released from the Earth’s interior

    **Methanotrophic Archaea**: These are a group of archaea that can use carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) as electron acceptors to produce methane. They are often found in environments where CO2 is abundant, such as in the deep subsurface, where CO2 is released from the Earth’s interior. Some examples include: - *Methanocaldococcus jannaschii* -...

    work page

Showing first 80 references.