This work identifies 18 foundational challenges in assuring the alignment and safety of large language models (LLMs). These challenges are organized into three different categories: scientific understanding of LLMs, development and deployment methods, and sociotechnical challenges. Based on the identified challenges, we pose $200+$ concrete research questions.

Stepwise inference protocols, such as scratchpads and chain-of-thought, help language models solve complex problems by decomposing them into a sequence of simpler subproblems. Despite the significant gain in performance achieved via these protocols, the underlying mechanisms of stepwise inference have remained elusive. To address this, we propose to study autoregressive Transformer models on a synthetic task that embodies the multi-step nature of problems where stepwise inference is generally most useful. Specifically, we define a graph navigation problem wherein a model is tasked with traversing a path from a start to a goal node on the graph. Despite is simplicity, we find we can empirically reproduce and analyze several phenomena observed at scale: (i) the stepwise inference reasoning gap, the cause of which we find in the structure of the training data; (ii) a diversity-accuracy tradeoff in model generations as sampling temperature varies; (iii) a simplicity bias in the model's output; and (iv) compositional generalization and a primacy bias with in-context exemplars. Overall, our work introduces a grounded, synthetic framework for studying stepwise inference and offers mechanistic hypotheses that can lay the foundation for a deeper understanding of this phenomenon.

Transformers trained on huge text corpora exhibit a remarkable set of capabilities, e.g., performing basic arithmetic. Given the inherent compositional nature of language, one can expect the model to learn to compose these capabilities, potentially yielding a combinatorial explosion of what operations it can perform on an input. Motivated by the above, we train autoregressive Transformer models on a synthetic data-generating process that involves compositions of a set of well-defined monolithic capabilities. Through a series of extensive and systematic experiments on this data-generating process, we show that: (1) autoregressive Transformers can learn compositional structures from small amounts of training data and generalize to exponentially or even combinatorially many functions; (2) generating intermediate outputs when composing functions is more effective for generalizing to new, unseen compositions than not generating any intermediate outputs (3) biases in the order of the compositions in the training data result in Transformers that fail to compose some combinations of functions; and (4) the attention layers select which capability to apply while the feed-forward layers execute the selected capability.

Modern generative models exhibit unprecedented capabilities to generate extremely realistic data. However, given the inherent compositionality of the real world, reliable use of these models in practical applications requires that they exhibit the capability to compose a novel set of concepts to generate outputs not seen in the training data set. Prior work demonstrates that recent diffusion models do exhibit intriguing compositional generalization abilities, but also fail unpredictably. Motivated by this, we perform a controlled study for understanding compositional generalization in conditional diffusion models in a synthetic setting, varying different attributes of the training data and measuring the model's ability to generate samples out-of-distribution. Our results show: (i) the order in which the ability to generate samples from a concept and compose them emerges is governed by the structure of the underlying data-generating process; (ii) performance on compositional tasks exhibits a sudden "emergence" due to multiplicative reliance on the performance of constituent tasks, partially explaining emergent phenomena seen in generative models; and (iii) composing concepts with lower frequency in the training data to generate out-of-distribution samples requires considerably more optimization steps compared to generating in-distribution samples. Overall, our study lays a foundation for understanding emergent capabilities and compositionality in generative models from a data-centric perspective.

We explore the viability of casting foundation models as generic reward functions for reinforcement learning. To this end, we propose a simple pipeline that interfaces an off-the-shelf vision model with a large language model. Specifically, given a trajectory of observations, we infer the likelihood of an instruction describing the task that the user wants an agent to perform. We show that this generic likelihood function exhibits the characteristics ideally expected from a reward function: it associates high values with the desired behaviour and lower values for several similar, but incorrect policies. Overall, our work opens the possibility of designing open-ended agents for interactive tasks via foundation models.

Large language models (LLMs) trained on huge corpora of text datasets demonstrate intriguing capabilities, achieving state-of-the-art performance on tasks they were not explicitly trained for. The precise nature of LLM capabilities is often mysterious, and different prompts can elicit different capabilities through in-context learning. We propose a framework that enables us to analyze in-context learning dynamics to understand latent concepts underlying LLMs' behavioral patterns. This provides a more nuanced understanding than success-or-failure evaluation benchmarks, but does not require observing internal activations as a mechanistic interpretation of circuits would. Inspired by the cognitive science of human randomness perception, we use random binary sequences as context and study dynamics of in-context learning by manipulating properties of context data, such as sequence length. In the latest GPT-3.5+ models, we find emergent abilities to generate seemingly random numbers and learn basic formal languages, with striking in-context learning dynamics where model outputs transition sharply from seemingly random behaviors to deterministic repetition.

Fine-tuning large pre-trained models has become the de facto strategy for developing both task-specific and general-purpose machine learning systems, including developing models that are safe to deploy. Despite its clear importance, there has been minimal work that explains how fine-tuning alters the underlying capabilities learned by a model during pretraining: does fine-tuning yield entirely novel capabilities or does it just modulate existing ones? We address this question empirically in synthetic, controlled settings where we can use mechanistic interpretability tools (e.g., network pruning and probing) to understand how the model's underlying capabilities are changing. We perform an extensive analysis of the effects of fine-tuning in these settings, and show that: (i) fine-tuning rarely alters the underlying model capabilities; (ii) a minimal transformation, which we call a 'wrapper', is typically learned on top of the underlying model capabilities, creating the illusion that they have been modified; and (iii) further fine-tuning on a task where such hidden capabilities are relevant leads to sample-efficient 'revival' of the capability, i.e., the model begins reusing these capability after only a few gradient steps. This indicates that practitioners can unintentionally remove a model's safety wrapper merely by fine-tuning it on a, e.g., superficially unrelated, downstream task. We additionally perform analysis on language models trained on the TinyStories dataset to support our claims in a more realistic setup.

We study neural network loss landscapes through the lens of mode connectivity, the observation that minimizers of neural networks retrieved via training on a dataset are connected via simple paths of low loss. Specifically, we ask the following question: are minimizers that rely on different mechanisms for making their predictions connected via simple paths of low loss? We provide a definition of mechanistic similarity as shared invariances to input transformations and demonstrate that lack of linear connectivity between two models implies they use dissimilar mechanisms for making their predictions. Relevant to practice, this result helps us demonstrate that naive fine-tuning on a downstream dataset can fail to alter a model's mechanisms, e.g., fine-tuning can fail to eliminate a model's reliance on spurious attributes. Our analysis also motivates a method for targeted alteration of a model's mechanisms, named connectivity-based fine-tuning (CBFT), which we analyze using several synthetic datasets for the task of reducing a model's reliance on spurious attributes.

Prevention of complete and dimensional collapse of representations has recently become a design principle for self-supervised learning (SSL). However, questions remain in our theoretical understanding: When do those collapses occur? What are the mechanisms and causes? We answer these questions by deriving and thoroughly analyzing an analytically tractable theory of SSL loss landscapes. In this theory, we identify the causes of the dimensional collapse and study the effect of normalization and bias. Finally, we leverage the interpretability afforded by the analytical theory to understand how dimensional collapse can be beneficial and what affects the robustness of SSL against data imbalance.

Recent analyses of self-supervised learning (SSL) find the following data-centric properties to be critical for learning good representations: invariance to task-irrelevant semantics, separability of classes in some latent space, and recoverability of labels from augmented samples. However, given their discrete, non-Euclidean nature, graph datasets and graph SSL methods are unlikely to satisfy these properties. This raises the question: how do graph SSL methods, such as contrastive learning (CL), work well? To systematically probe this question, we perform a generalization analysis for CL when using generic graph augmentations (GGAs), with a focus on data-centric properties. Our analysis yields formal insights into the limitations of GGAs and the necessity of task-relevant augmentations. As we empirically show, GGAs do not induce task-relevant invariances on common benchmark datasets, leading to only marginal gains over naive, untrained baselines. Our theory motivates a synthetic data generation process that enables control over task-relevant information and boasts pre-defined optimal augmentations. This flexible benchmark helps us identify yet unrecognized limitations in advanced augmentation techniques (e.g., automated methods). Overall, our work rigorously contextualizes, both empirically and theoretically, the effects of data-centric properties on augmentation strategies and learning paradigms for graph SSL.