BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practices

AI models are increasingly prevalent in high-stakes environments, necessitating thorough assessment of their capabilities and risks. Benchmarks are popular for measuring these attributes and for comparing model performance, tracking progress, and identifying weaknesses in foundation and non-foundation models. They can inform model selection for downstream tasks and influence policy initiatives. However, not all benchmarks are the same: their quality depends on their design and usability. In this paper, we develop an assessment framework considering 46 best practices across an AI benchmark's lifecycle and evaluate 24 AI benchmarks against it. We find that there exist large quality differences and that commonly used benchmarks suffer from significant issues. We further find that most benchmarks do not report statistical significance of their results nor allow for their results to be easily replicated. To support benchmark developers in aligning with best practices, we provide a checklist for minimum quality assurance based on our assessment. We also develop a living repository of benchmark assessments to support benchmark comparability, accessible at betterbench.stanford.edu.

Measuring Free-Form Decision-Making Inconsistency of Language Models in Military Crisis Simulations

There is an increasing interest in using language models (LMs) for automated decision-making, with multiple countries actively testing LMs to aid in military crisis decision-making. To scrutinize relying on LM decision-making in high-stakes settings, we examine the inconsistency of responses in a crisis simulation ("wargame"), similar to reported tests conducted by the US military. Prior work illustrated escalatory tendencies and varying levels of aggression among LMs but were constrained to simulations with pre-defined actions. This was due to the challenges associated with quantitatively measuring semantic differences and evaluating natural language decision-making without relying on pre-defined actions. In this work, we query LMs for free form responses and use a metric based on BERTScore to measure response inconsistency quantitatively. Leveraging the benefits of BERTScore, we show that the inconsistency metric is robust to linguistic variations that preserve semantic meaning in a question-answering setting across text lengths. We show that all five tested LMs exhibit levels of inconsistency that indicate semantic differences, even when adjusting the wargame setting, anonymizing involved conflict countries, or adjusting the sampling temperature parameter $T$. Further qualitative evaluation shows that models recommend courses of action that share few to no similarities. We also study the impact of different prompt sensitivity variations on inconsistency at temperature $T = 0$. We find that inconsistency due to semantically equivalent prompt variations can exceed response inconsistency from temperature sampling for most studied models across different levels of ablations. Given the high-stakes nature of military deployment, we recommend further consideration be taken before using LMs to inform military decisions or other cases of high-stakes decision-making.

Markovian Agents for Truthful Language Modeling

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning could in principle enable a deeper understanding of a language model's (LM) internal reasoning. However, prior work suggests that some LMs answer questions similarly despite changes in their CoT, suggesting that those models are not truly using the CoT. We propose a training method to produce CoTs that are sufficient alone for predicting future text, independent of other context. This methodology gives a guarantee that if the LM can predict future tokens, then it must have used the CoT to understand its context. We formalize the idea that the truthfulness of a sender to a receiver LM is the degree to which the sender helps the receiver predict their future observations. Then we define a "Markovian" LM as one which predicts future text given only a CoT as context. We derive a "Markovian training" procedure by applying our definition of truthfulness to a Markovian LM and optimizing via policy gradient and Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO). We demonstrate the effectiveness of our training algorithm on long-context arithmetic problems, show that the model utilizes the CoT, and validate that the generated CoT is meaningful and usable by other models.

Human vs. Machine: Language Models and Wargames

Wargames have a long history in the development of military strategy and the response of nations to threats or attacks. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) promises better decision-making and increased military effectiveness. However, there is still debate about how AI systems, especially large language models (LLMs), behave as compared to humans. To this end, we use a wargame experiment with 107 national security expert human players designed to look at crisis escalation in a fictional US-China scenario and compare human players to LLM-simulated responses. We find considerable agreement in the LLM and human responses but also significant quantitative and qualitative differences between simulated and human players in the wargame, motivating caution to policymakers before handing over autonomy or following AI-based strategy recommendations.

Escalation Risks from Language Models in Military and Diplomatic Decision-Making

Governments are increasingly considering integrating autonomous AI agents in high-stakes military and foreign-policy decision-making, especially with the emergence of advanced generative AI models like GPT-4. Our work aims to scrutinize the behavior of multiple AI agents in simulated wargames, specifically focusing on their predilection to take escalatory actions that may exacerbate multilateral conflicts. Drawing on political science and international relations literature about escalation dynamics, we design a novel wargame simulation and scoring framework to assess the escalation risks of actions taken by these agents in different scenarios. Contrary to prior studies, our research provides both qualitative and quantitative insights and focuses on large language models (LLMs). We find that all five studied off-the-shelf LLMs show forms of escalation and difficult-to-predict escalation patterns. We observe that models tend to develop arms-race dynamics, leading to greater conflict, and in rare cases, even to the deployment of nuclear weapons. Qualitatively, we also collect the models' reported reasonings for chosen actions and observe worrying justifications based on deterrence and first-strike tactics. Given the high stakes of military and foreign-policy contexts, we recommend further examination and cautious consideration before deploying autonomous language model agents for strategic military or diplomatic decision-making.

TomOpt: Differential optimisation for task- and constraint-aware design of particle detectors in the context of muon tomography

We describe a software package, TomOpt, developed to optimise the geometrical layout and specifications of detectors designed for tomography by scattering of cosmic-ray muons. The software exploits differentiable programming for the modeling of muon interactions with detectors and scanned volumes, the inference of volume properties, and the optimisation cycle performing the loss minimisation. In doing so, we provide the first demonstration of end-to-end-differentiable and inference-aware optimisation of particle physics instruments. We study the performance of the software on a relevant benchmark scenarios and discuss its potential applications.

Analyzing And Editing Inner Mechanisms Of Backdoored Language Models

Recent advancements in interpretability research made transformer language models more transparent. This progress led to a better understanding of their inner workings for toy and naturally occurring models. However, how these models internally process sentiment changes has yet to be sufficiently answered. In this work, we introduce a new interpretability tool called PCP ablation, where we replace modules with low-rank matrices based on the principal components of their activations, reducing model parameters and their behavior to essentials. We demonstrate PCP ablations on MLP and attention layers in backdoored toy, backdoored large, and naturally occurring models. We determine MLPs as most important for the backdoor mechanism and use this knowledge to remove, insert, and modify backdoor mechanisms with engineered replacements via PCP ablation.

Virgo: Scalable Unsupervised Classification of Cosmological Shock Waves

Cosmological shock waves are essential to understanding the formation of cosmological structures. To study them, scientists run computationally expensive high-resolution 3D hydrodynamic simulations. Interpreting the simulation results is challenging because the resulting data sets are enormous, and the shock wave surfaces are hard to separate and classify due to their complex morphologies and multiple shock fronts intersecting. We introduce a novel pipeline, Virgo, combining physical motivation, scalability, and probabilistic robustness to tackle this unsolved unsupervised classification problem. To this end, we employ kernel principal component analysis with low-rank matrix approximations to denoise data sets of shocked particles and create labeled subsets. We perform supervised classification to recover full data resolution with stochastic variational deep kernel learning. We evaluate on three state-of-the-art data sets with varying complexity and achieve good results. The proposed pipeline runs automatically, has only a few hyperparameters, and performs well on all tested data sets. Our results are promising for large-scale applications, and we highlight now enabled future scientific work.