The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2409.18203 · v2 · pith:ILZ7RB5G · submitted 2024-09-26 · cs.HC · cs.AI· cs.CL· cs.LG

Policy Maps: Tools for Guiding the Unbounded Space of LLM Behaviors

Reviewed by Pithpith:ILZ7RB5Gopen to challenge →

classification cs.HC cs.AIcs.CLcs.LG
keywords policymapsbehaviorbehaviorscoveragedesigndetailsgraphic
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

AI policy sets boundaries on acceptable behavior for AI models, but this is challenging in the context of large language models (LLMs): how do you ensure coverage over a vast behavior space? We introduce policy maps, an approach to AI policy design inspired by the practice of physical mapmaking. Instead of aiming for full coverage, policy maps aid effective navigation through intentional design choices about which aspects to capture and which to abstract away. With Policy Projector, an interactive tool for designing LLM policy maps, an AI practitioner can survey the landscape of model input-output pairs, define custom regions (e.g., "violence"), and navigate these regions with if-then policy rules that can act on LLM outputs (e.g., if output contains "violence" and "graphic details," then rewrite without "graphic details"). Policy Projector supports interactive policy authoring using LLM classification and steering and a map visualization reflecting the AI practitioner's work. In an evaluation with 12 AI safety experts, our system helps policy designers craft policies around problematic model behaviors such as incorrect gender assumptions and handling of immediate physical safety threats.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Evalet: Evaluating Large Language Models through Functional Fragmentation

    cs.HC 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0

    Evalet applies functional fragmentation to deliver fragment-level qualitative analysis of LLM evaluations, with a user study showing 48% more misalignment detections than holistic scoring.