Due to the size and complexity of modern large language models (LLMs), it has proven challenging to uncover the underlying mechanisms that models use to solve reasoning problems. For instance, is their reasoning for a specific problem localized to certain parts of the network? Do they break down the reasoning problem into modular components that are then executed as sequential steps as we go deeper in the model? To better understand the reasoning capability of LLMs, we study a minimal propositional logic problem that requires combining multiple facts to arrive at a solution. By studying this problem on Mistral and Gemma models, up to 27B parameters, we illuminate the core components the models use to solve such logic problems. From a mechanistic interpretability point of view, we use causal mediation analysis to uncover the pathways and components of the LLMs' reasoning processes. Then, we offer fine-grained insights into the functions of attention heads in different layers. We not only find a sparse circuit that computes the answer, but we decompose it into sub-circuits that have four distinct and modular uses. Finally, we reveal that three distinct models - Mistral-7B, Gemma2-9B and Gemma-2-27B - contain analogous but not identical mechanisms.

Causal inference is essential for developing and evaluating medical interventions, yet real-world medical datasets are often difficult to access due to regulatory barriers. This makes synthetic data a potentially valuable asset that enables these medical analyses, along with the development of new inference methods themselves. Generative models can produce synthetic data that closely approximate real data distributions, yet existing methods do not consider the unique challenges that downstream causal inference tasks, and specifically those focused on treatments, pose. We establish a set of desiderata that synthetic data containing treatments should satisfy to maximise downstream utility: preservation of (i) the covariate distribution, (ii) the treatment assignment mechanism, and (iii) the outcome generation mechanism. Based on these desiderata, we propose a set of evaluation metrics to assess such synthetic data. Finally, we present STEAM: a novel method for generating Synthetic data for Treatment Effect Analysis in Medicine that mimics the data-generating process of data containing treatments and optimises for our desiderata. We empirically demonstrate that STEAM achieves state-of-the-art performance across our metrics as compared to existing generative models, particularly as the complexity of the true data-generating process increases.

His fortunes reached new heights while his online behavior reached new lows. Enter your email to receive alerts for this author. You can manage your newsletter subscriptions at any time. You're already subscribed to the aa_Nitish_Pahwa newsletter. You can manage your newsletter subscriptions at any time.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) is crucial for personalized decision-making. However, this task is challenging in survival analysis, which includes time-to-event data with censored outcomes (e.g., due to study dropout). In this paper, we propose a toolbox of orthogonal survival learners to estimate HTEs from time-to-event data under censoring. Our learners have three main advantages: (i) we show that learners from our toolbox are guaranteed to be orthogonal and thus robust with respect to nuisance estimation errors; (ii) our toolbox allows for incorporating a custom weighting function, which can lead to robustness against different types of low overlap, and (iii) our learners are modelagnostic (i.e., they can be combined with arbitrary machine learning models). We instantiate the learners from our toolbox using several weighting functions and, as a result, propose various neural orthogonal survival learners. Some of these coincide with existing survival learners (including survival versions of the DRand R-learner), while others are novel and further robust w.r.t.

Recent advances in text-to-image models have increased the exposure of powerful image editing techniques as a tool, raising concerns about their potential for malicious use. An emerging line of research to address such threats focuses on implanting ("protective") adversarial noise into images before their public release, so future attempts to edit them using text-to-image models can be impeded. However, subsequent works have shown that these adversarial noises are often easily "reversed," e.g., with techniques as simple as JPEG compression, casting doubt on the practicality of the approach. In this paper, we argue that adversarial noise for image protection should not only be imperceptible, as has been a primary focus of prior work, but also irreversible, viz., it should be difficult to detect as noise provided that the original image is hidden. We propose a surprisingly simple method to enhance the robustness of image protection methods against noise reversal techniques. Specifically, it applies an adaptive per-region Gaussian blur on the noise to adjust the overall frequency spectrum. Through extensive experiments, we show that our method consistently improves the per-sample worst-case protection performance of existing methods against a wide range of reversal techniques on diverse image editing scenarios, while also reducing quality degradation due to noise in terms of perceptual metrics.

Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to exhibit vulnerabilities despite deliberate safety alignment efforts, posing significant risks to users and society. To safeguard against the risk of policy-violating content, system-level moderation via external guard models--designed to monitor LLM inputs and outputs and block potentially harmful content--has emerged as a prevalent mitigation strategy. Existing approaches of training guard models rely heavily on extensive human curated datasets and struggle with out-of-distribution threats, such as emerging harmful categories or jailbreak attacks. To address these limitations, we propose RSafe, an adaptive reasoning-based safeguard that conducts guided safety reasoning to provide robust protection within the scope of specified safety policies. RSafe operates in two stages: (1) guided reasoning, where it analyzes safety risks of input content through policy-guided step-by-step reasoning, and (2) reinforced alignment, where rule-based RL optimizes its reasoning paths to align with accurate safety prediction.

Learning a compact representation of history is critical for planning and generalization in partially observable environments. While meta-reinforcement learning (RL) agents can attain near Bayes-optimal policies, they often fail to learn the compact, interpretable Bayes-optimal belief states. This representational inefficiency potentially limits the agent's adaptability and generalization capacity. Inspired by predictive coding in neuroscience--which suggests that the brain predicts sensory inputs as a neural implementation of Bayesian inference--and by auxiliary predictive objectives in deep RL, we investigate whether integrating self-supervised predictive coding modules into meta-RL can facilitate learning of Bayes-optimal representations. Through state machine simulation, we show that meta-RL with predictive modules consistently generates more interpretable representations that better approximate Bayes-optimal belief states compared to conventional meta-RL across a wide variety of tasks, even when both achieve optimal policies. In challenging tasks requiring active information seeking, only meta-RL with predictive modules successfully learns optimal representations and policies, whereas conventional meta-RL struggles with inadequate representation learning. Finally, we demonstrate that better representation learning leads to improved generalization. Our results strongly suggest the role of predictive learning as a guiding principle for effective representation learning in agents navigating partial observability.

US judge dismisses Musk's xAI trade secret lawsuit against OpenAI A United States federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by Elon Musk's artificial intelligence company xAI that accused rival Sam Altman's OpenAI of stealing trade secrets for chatbots. US District Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco said on Monday that xAI failed to show that OpenAI induced former xAI senior engineer Xuechen Li to divulge confidential information related to its Grok chatbot, or that OpenAI engineers knew Li might have disclosed any. She dismissed an earlier version in February. The lawsuit originally filed last September focused on broader alleged misappropriation of confidential information, including source code, by xAI employees who left for jobs at OpenAI. Monday's decision is Musk's second legal loss against OpenAI in four weeks. On May 18, a federal jury ruled against Musk, the world's richest person, in his $150bn lawsuit accusing OpenAI and Altman of "stealing a charity" by betraying the company's original mission as a nonprofit to enrich themselves.

Evaluating the open-form textual responses generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) typically requires measuring the semantic similarity of the response to a (human generated) reference. However, there is evidence that current semantic similarity methods may capture syntactic or lexical forms over semantic content. While benchmarks exist for semantic equivalence, they often suffer from high generation costs due to reliance on subjective human judgment, limited availability for domain-specific applications, and unclear definitions of equivalence. This paper introduces a novel method for generating benchmarks to evaluate semantic similarity methods for LLM outputs, specifically addressing these limitations. Our approach leverages knowledge graphs (KGs) to generate pairs of naturallanguage statements that are semantically similar or dissimilar, with dissimilar pairs categorized into one of four sub-types. We generate benchmark datasets in four different domains (general knowledge, biomedicine, finance, biology), and conduct a comparative study of semantic similarity methods including traditional natural language processing scores and LLM-as-a-judge predictions. We observe that the sub-type of semantic variation, as well as the domain of the benchmark impact the performance of semantic similarity methods, with no method being consistently superior.

Evaluating the open-form textual responses generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) typically requires measuring the semantic similarity of the response to a (human generated) reference. However, there is evidence that current semantic similarity methods may capture syntactic or lexical forms over semantic content. While benchmarks exist for semantic equivalence, they often suffer from high generation costs due to reliance on subjective human judgment, limited availability for domain-specific applications, and unclear definitions of equivalence. This paper introduces a novel method for generating benchmarks to evaluate semantic similarity methods for LLM outputs, specifically addressing these limitations. Our approach leverages knowledge graphs (KGs) to generate pairs of naturallanguage statements that are semantically similar or dissimilar, with dissimilar pairs categorized into one of four sub-types. We generate benchmark datasets in four different domains (general knowledge, biomedicine, finance, biology), and conduct a comparative study of semantic similarity methods including traditional natural language processing scores and LLM-as-a-judge predictions. We observe that the sub-type of semantic variation, as well as the domain of the benchmark impact the performance of semantic similarity methods, with no method being consistently superior.