REVIEW 8 cited by
Monitoring Latent World States in Language Models with Propositional Probes
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Monitoring Latent World States in Language Models with Propositional Probes
read the original abstract
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 8 Pith papers
-
Less Languages, Less Tokens: An Efficient Unified Logic Cross-lingual Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Framework
UL-XCoT maintains competitive accuracy on multilingual benchmarks while cutting decoding tokens by over 50% through per-query language selection and logic-space trajectory pruning.
-
Cell-Based Representation of Relational Binding in Language Models
Large language models encode relational bindings via a cell-based representation: a low-dimensional linear subspace in which each cell corresponds to an entity-relation index pair and attributes are retrieved from the...
-
Radical AI Interpretability
A framework is proposed for solving for an AI system's beliefs and desires from its computational facts, with criteria for success tied to interpretability tests and emphasis on holistic attribution.
-
Breaking the Solver Bottleneck: Training Task Generators at the Learnable Frontier
PROPEL amortizes solver evaluation with a trained activation probe to optimize task generators toward a target solve rate, raising the share of learnable tasks from ~10% to ~20% in coding and SWE experiments.
-
The Impact of Off-Policy Training Data on Probe Generalisation
Off-policy training data for LLM behavior probes causes significant generalization failures especially for intent-based behaviors like deception, and performance on coerced incentivised data correlates with real on-po...
-
Do Linear Probes Generalize Better in Persona Coordinates?
Persona axes derived from contrastive prompts and PCA yield linear probes that generalize better than raw-activation probes across 10 datasets for deception and sycophancy.
-
Do Linear Probes Generalize Better in Persona Coordinates?
Probes on persona principal components from contrastive prompts generalize better than raw activation probes for harmful behaviors across 10 datasets.
-
LLM Reasoning Is Latent, Not the Chain of Thought
LLM reasoning is primarily mediated by latent-state trajectories rather than by explicit surface chain-of-thought outputs.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.