Standard federated learning (FL) approaches are vulnerable to the free-rider dilemma: participating agents can contribute little to nothing yet receive a well-trained aggregated model.

The aim is to design truthful mechanisms, ensuring agents cannot gain by misreporting.

Proportionality is an attractive fairness concept that has been applied to a range of problems including the facility location problem, a classic problem in social choice.

Deceptive agents are a challenge for the safety, trustworthiness, and cooperation of AI systems.

We introduce Inference-Time Intervention (ITI), a technique designed to enhance the truthfulness of large language models (LLMs). ITI operates by shifting model activations during inference, following a learned set of directions across a limited number of attention heads. This intervention significantly improves the performance of LLaMA models on the TruthfulQA benchmark. On an instruction-finetuned LLaMA called Alpaca, ITI improves its truthfulness from $32.5\%$ to $65.1\%$. We identify a tradeoff between truthfulness and helpfulness and demonstrate how to balance it by tuning the intervention strength. ITI is minimally invasive and computationally inexpensive. Moreover, the technique is data efficient: while approaches like RLHF require extensive annotations, ITI locates truthful directions using only few hundred examples. Our findings suggest that LLMs may have an internal representation of the likelihood of something being true, even as they produce falsehoods on the surface.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language understanding and generation, but controlling their behavior reliably remains challenging, especially in open-ended generation settings. This paper introduces a novel supervised steering approach that operates in sparse, interpretable representation spaces. We employ sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to obtain sparse latent representations that aim to disentangle semantic attributes from model activations. Then we train linear classifiers to identify a small subspace of task-relevant dimensions in latent representations. Finally, we learn supervised steering vectors constrained to this subspace, optimized to align with target behaviors. Experiments across sentiment, truthfulness, and political polarity steering tasks with multiple LLMs demonstrate that our supervised steering vectors achieve higher success rates with minimal degradation in generation quality compared to existing methods. Further analysis reveals that a notably small subspace is sufficient for effective steering, enabling more targeted and interpretable interventions. Our implementation is publicly available at https://github.com/Ineedanamehere/SAE-SSV.

AI researchers and practitioners increasingly apply large language models (LLMs) to what we call reasoning-intensive regression (RiR), i.e., deducing subtle numerical scores from text. Unlike standard language regression tasks, e.g., for sentiment or similarity, RiR often appears instead in ad-hoc problems such as rubric-based scoring, modeling dense rewards in complex environments, or domain-specific retrieval, where much deeper analysis of context is required while only limited task-specific training data and computation are available. We cast four realistic problems as RiR tasks to establish an initial benchmark, and use that to test our hypothesis that prompting frozen LLMs and finetuning Transformer encoders via gradient descent will both often struggle in RiR. We then propose MENTAT, a simple and lightweight method that combines batch-reflective prompt optimization with neural ensemble learning. MENTAT achieves up to 65% improvement over both baselines, though substantial room remains for future advances in RiR.

Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning has demonstrated remarkable deep reasoning capabilities in both large language models (LLMs) and multimodal large language models (MLLMs). However, its reliability is often undermined by the accumulation of errors in intermediate steps. This paper introduces an novel approach to calibrate the CoT reasoning accuracy by leveraging the model's intrinsic veracity encoding. We discover that specific attention head activations reliably reflect the truthfulness of reasoning steps in CoT. Based on this insight, we train a confidence predictor to evaluate the correctness of each reasoning step using these truthfulness-sensitive activations, dynamically selecting the most plausible reasoning path via beam search. Experimental results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art baselines (e.g., Few-Shot CoT, Self-Consistency, and Self-Evaluation Guided Beam Search) across the mathematical, symbolic, and commonsense reasoning tasks, exhibiting superior accuracy and reliability in both unimodal and multimodal settings. We further validate the approach on large reasoning models, confirming its applicability to specialized reasoning models. Additionally, we explore the role of the model's self-correction ability in CoT reasoning. This work provides a novel reliability improvement path for CoT reasoning with broad application potential.