The o1 model series is trained with large-scale reinforcement learning to reason using chain of thought. These advanced reasoning capabilities provide new avenues for improving the safety and robustness of our models. In particular, our models can reason about our safety policies in context when responding to potentially unsafe prompts, through deliberative alignment. This leads to state-of-the-art performance on certain benchmarks for risks such as generating illicit advice, choosing stereotyped responses, and succumbing to known jailbreaks. Training models to incorporate a chain of thought before answering has the potential to unlock substantial benefits, while also increasing potential risks that stem from heightened intelligence. Our results underscore the need for building robust alignment methods, extensively stress-testing their efficacy, and maintaining meticulous risk management protocols. This report outlines the safety work carried out for the OpenAI o1 and OpenAI o1-mini models, including safety evaluations, external red teaming, and Preparedness Framework evaluations.

We report the development of GPT-4, a large-scale, multimodal model which can accept image and text inputs and produce text outputs. While less capable than humans in many real-world scenarios, GPT-4 exhibits human-level performance on various professional and academic benchmarks, including passing a simulated bar exam with a score around the top 10% of test takers. GPT-4 is a Transformer-based model pre-trained to predict the next token in a document. The post-training alignment process results in improved performance on measures of factuality and adherence to desired behavior. A core component of this project was developing infrastructure and optimization methods that behave predictably across a wide range of scales. This allowed us to accurately predict some aspects of GPT-4's performance based on models trained with no more than 1/1,000th the compute of GPT-4.

We develop a transformer-based sequence-to-sequence model that recovers scalar ordinary differential equations (ODEs) in symbolic form from irregularly sampled and noisy observations of a single solution trajectory. We demonstrate in extensive empirical evaluations that our model performs better or on par with existing methods in terms of accurate recovery across various settings. Moreover, our method is efficiently scalable: after one-time pretraining on a large set of ODEs, we can infer the governing law of a new observed solution in a few forward passes of the model.

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 450 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.

We introduce Explanatory Learning (EL), a framework to let machines use existing knowledge buried in symbolic sequences -- e.g. explanations written in hieroglyphic -- by autonomously learning to interpret them. In EL, the burden of interpreting symbols is not left to humans or rigid human-coded compilers, as done in Program Synthesis. Rather, EL calls for a learned interpreter, built upon a limited collection of symbolic sequences paired with observations of several phenomena. This interpreter can be used to make predictions on a novel phenomenon given its explanation, and even to find that explanation using only a handful of observations, like human scientists do. We formulate the EL problem as a simple binary classification task, so that common end-to-end approaches aligned with the dominant empiricist view of machine learning could, in principle, solve it. To these models, we oppose Critical Rationalist Networks (CRNs), which instead embrace a rationalist view on the acquisition of knowledge. CRNs express several desired properties by construction, they are truly explainable, can adjust their processing at test-time for harder inferences, and can offer strong confidence guarantees on their predictions. As a final contribution, we introduce Odeen, a basic EL environment that simulates a small flatland-style universe full of phenomena to explain. Using Odeen as a testbed, we show how CRNs outperform empiricist end-to-end approaches of similar size and architecture (Transformers) in discovering explanations for novel phenomena.

In this paper, we investigate the principle that `good explanations are hard to vary' in the context of deep learning. We show that averaging gradients across examples -- akin to a logical OR of patterns -- can favor memorization and `patchwork' solutions that sew together different strategies, instead of identifying invariances. To inspect this, we first formalize a notion of consistency for minima of the loss surface, which measures to what extent a minimum appears only when examples are pooled. We then propose and experimentally validate a simple alternative algorithm based on a logical AND, that focuses on invariances and prevents memorization in a set of real-world tasks. Finally, using a synthetic dataset with a clear distinction between invariant and spurious mechanisms, we dissect learning signals and compare this approach to well-established regularizers.

We introduce a method which enables a recurrent dynamics model to be temporally abstract. Our approach, which we call Adaptive Skip Intervals (ASI), is based on the observation that in many sequential prediction tasks, the exact time at which events occur is irrelevant to the underlying objective. Moreover, in many situations, there exist prediction intervals which result in particularly easy-to-predict transitions. We show that there are prediction tasks for which we gain both computational efficiency and prediction accuracy by allowing the model to make predictions at a sampling rate which it can choose itself.

The ability to learn and act in novel situations is still a prerogative of animate intelligence, as current machine learning methods mostly fail when moving beyond the standard i.i.d. setting. What is the reason for this discrepancy? Most machine learning tasks are anti-causal, i.e., we infer causes (labels) from effects (observations). Typically, in supervised learning we build systems that try to directly invert causal mechanisms. Instead, in this paper we argue that strong generalization capabilities crucially hinge on searching and validating meaningful hypotheses, requiring access to a causal model. In such a framework, we want to find a cause that leads to the observed effect. Anti-causal models are used to drive this search, but a causal model is required for validation. We investigate the fundamental differences between causal and anti-causal tasks, discuss implications for topics ranging from adversarial attacks to disentangling factors of variation, and provide extensive evidence from the literature to substantiate our view. We advocate for incorporating causal models in supervised learning to shift the paradigm from inference only, to search and validation.

We introduce a method which enables a recurrent dynamics model to be temporally abstract. Our approach, which we call Adaptive Skip Intervals (ASI), is based on the observation that in many sequential prediction tasks, the exact time at which events occur is irrelevant to the underlying objective. Moreover, in many situations, there exist prediction intervals which result in particularly easy-to-predict transitions. We show that there are prediction tasks for which we gain both computational efficiency and prediction accuracy by allowing the model to make predictions at a sampling rate which it can choose itself.

Statistical learning relies upon data sampled from a distribution, and we usually do not care what actually generated it in the first place. From the point of view of causal modeling, the structure of each distribution is induced by physical mechanisms that give rise to dependencies between observables. Mechanisms, however, can be meaningful autonomous modules of generative models that make sense beyond a particular entailed data distribution, lending themselves to transfer between problems. We develop an algorithm to recover a set of independent (inverse) mechanisms from a set of transformed data points. The approach is unsupervised and based on a set of experts that compete for data generated by the mechanisms, driving specialization. We analyze the proposed method in a series of experiments on image data. Each expert learns to map a subset of the transformed data back to a reference distribution. The learned mechanisms generalize to novel domains. We discuss implications for transfer learning and links to recent trends in generative modeling.