Inducing Human-like Biases in Moral Reasoning Language Models

In this work, we study the alignment (BrainScore) of large language models (LLMs) fine-tuned for moral reasoning on behavioral data and/or brain data of humans performing the same task. We also explore if fine-tuning several LLMs on the fMRI data of humans performing moral reasoning can improve the BrainScore. We fine-tune several LLMs (BERT, RoBERTa, DeBERTa) on moral reasoning behavioral data from the ETHICS benchmark [Hendrycks et al., 2020], on the moral reasoning fMRI data from Koster-Hale et al. [2013], or on both. We study both the accuracy on the ETHICS benchmark and the BrainScores between model activations and fMRI data. While larger models generally performed better on both metrics, BrainScores did not significantly improve after fine-tuning.

Residual Stream Analysis with Multi-Layer SAEs

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are a promising approach to interpreting the internal representations of transformer language models. However, standard SAEs are trained separately on each transformer layer, making it difficult to use them to study how information flows across layers. To solve this problem, we introduce the multi-layer SAE (MLSAE): a single SAE trained on the residual stream activation vectors from every transformer layer simultaneously. The residual stream is usually understood as preserving information across layers, so we expected to, and did, find individual SAE features that are active at multiple layers. Interestingly, while a single SAE feature is active at different layers for different prompts, for a single prompt, we find that a single feature is far more likely to be active at a single layer. For larger underlying models, we find that the cosine similarities between adjacent layers in the residual stream are higher, so we expect more features to be active at multiple layers. These results show that MLSAEs are a promising method to study information flow in transformers. We release our code to train and analyze MLSAEs at https://github.com/tim-lawson/mlsae.

STARC: A General Framework For Quantifying Differences Between Reward Functions

In order to solve a task using reinforcement learning, it is necessary to first formalise the goal of that task as a reward function. However, for many real-world tasks, it is very difficult to manually specify a reward function that never incentivises undesirable behaviour. As a result, it is increasingly popular to use reward learning algorithms, which attempt to learn a reward function from data. However, the theoretical foundations of reward learning are not yet well-developed. In particular, it is typically not known when a given reward learning algorithm with high probability will learn a reward function that is safe to optimise. This means that reward learning algorithms generally must be evaluated empirically, which is expensive, and that their failure modes are difficult to predict in advance. One of the roadblocks to deriving better theoretical guarantees is the lack of good methods for quantifying the difference between reward functions. In this paper we provide a solution to this problem, in the form of a class of pseudometrics on the space of all reward functions that we call STARC (STAndardised Reward Comparison) metrics. We show that STARC metrics induce both an upper and a lower bound on worst-case regret, which implies that our metrics are tight, and that any metric with the same properties must be bilipschitz equivalent to ours. Moreover, we also identify a number of issues with reward metrics proposed by earlier works. Finally, we evaluate our metrics empirically, to demonstrate their practical efficacy. STARC metrics can be used to make both theoretical and empirical analysis of reward learning algorithms both easier and more principled.