correctness
- North America > United States > Minnesota > Hennepin County > Minneapolis (0.14)
- Europe > Austria > Vienna (0.14)
- North America > United States > Louisiana > Orleans Parish > New Orleans (0.04)
- (13 more...)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Large Language Model (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (1.00)
- (2 more...)
- North America > United States > Arizona > Maricopa County > Tempe (0.04)
- North America > United States > Colorado > Larimer County > Fort Collins (0.04)
- Europe > Czechia > Prague (0.04)
- North America > United States > Arizona (0.04)
- North America > United States > Colorado (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > Czechia > Prague (0.04)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (0.68)
- Oceania > Australia (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Toronto (0.04)
- (5 more...)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Workflow (0.93)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.68)
Checklist
Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's Did you describe the limitations of your work? Did you specify all the training details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they Did you report error bars (e.g., with respect to the random seed after running experi-20 Did you include the total amount of compute and the type of resources used (e.g., type If your work uses existing assets, did you cite the creators? Did you mention the license of the assets? Did you include any new assets either in the supplemental material or as a URL? [Y es] Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're We thereby state that we bear all responsibility in case of violation of rights, etc., and confirmation of F or what purpose was the dataset created? - For the novel task of data analysis as explained Who created the dataset and on behalf of which entity? - This dataset is created during a Who funded the creation of the dataset? What do the instances that comprise the dataset represent?
- North America > United States > California > Los Angeles County > Los Angeles (0.14)
- Europe > Belgium > Brussels-Capital Region > Brussels (0.04)
- Banking & Finance (0.96)
- Health & Medicine (0.94)
- North America > United States (0.14)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Toronto (0.04)
- Europe > Germany > Hesse > Darmstadt Region > Darmstadt (0.04)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Questionnaire & Opinion Survey (0.94)
- Education > Educational Setting (0.46)
- Education > Curriculum > Subject-Specific Education (0.46)
Compact Proofs of Model Performance via Mechanistic Interpretability
We propose using mechanistic interpretability – techniques for reverse engineering model weights into human-interpretable algorithms – to derive and compactly prove formal guarantees on model performance. We prototype this approach by formally proving accuracy lower bounds for a small transformer trained on Max-of-K, validating proof transferability across 151 random seeds and four values of K. We create 102 different computer-assisted proof strategies and assess their length and tightness of bound on each of our models. Using quantitative metrics, we find that shorter proofs seem to require and provide more mechanistic understanding. Moreover, we find that more faithful mechanistic understanding leads to tighter performance bounds. We confirm these connections by qualitatively examining a subset of our proofs. Finally, we identify compounding structureless errors as a key challenge for using mechanistic interpretability to generate compact proofs on model performance.
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- Oceania > Australia > New South Wales > Sydney (0.04)
- Europe > Poland > Lower Silesia Province > Wroclaw (0.04)
- (3 more...)
- Information Technology > Software (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Logic & Formal Reasoning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language (0.67)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.67)
- Europe > Latvia > Lubāna Municipality > Lubāna (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > Italy > Calabria > Catanzaro Province > Catanzaro (0.04)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.93)
- Information Technology > Security & Privacy (1.00)
- Education > Curriculum > Subject-Specific Education (1.00)
- Information Technology > Security & Privacy (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Large Language Model (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (1.00)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.05)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > Canada > Quebec > Montreal (0.04)
- Asia > South Korea > Seoul > Seoul (0.04)
- Transportation (0.46)
- Automobiles & Trucks (0.46)
- North America > United States > Alaska (0.05)
- North America > United States > Pennsylvania (0.05)
- North America > United States > Texas (0.04)
- (5 more...)
- Health & Medicine (1.00)
- Information Technology (0.68)
- Government > Regional Government > North America Government > United States Government (0.68)
- Government > Military (0.68)