Reliable and Efficient Amortized Model-based Evaluation

Comprehensive evaluations of language models (LM) during both development and deployment phases are necessary because these models possess numerous capabilities (e.g., mathematical reasoning, legal support, or medical diagnostic) as well as safety risks (e.g., racial bias, toxicity, or misinformation). The average score across a wide range of benchmarks provides a signal that helps guide the use of these LMs in practice. Currently, holistic evaluations are costly due to the large volume of benchmark questions, making frequent evaluations impractical. A popular attempt to lower the cost is to compute the average score on a subset of the benchmark. This approach, unfortunately, often renders an unreliable measure of LM performance because the average score is often confounded with the difficulty of the questions in the benchmark subset. Item response theory (IRT) was designed to address this challenge, providing a reliable measurement by careful controlling for question difficulty. Unfortunately, question difficulty is expensive to estimate. Facing this challenge, we train a model that predicts question difficulty from its content, enabling a reliable measurement at a fraction of the cost. In addition, we leverage this difficulty predictor to further improve the evaluation efficiency through training a question generator given a difficulty level. This question generator is essential in adaptive testing, where, instead of using a random subset of the benchmark questions, informative questions are adaptively chosen based on the current estimation of LLM performance. Experiments on 22 common natural language benchmarks and 172 LMs show that this approach is more reliable and efficient compared to current common practice.

Fine-Tuning Vision-Language-Action Models: Optimizing Speed and Success

Recent vision-language-action models (VLAs) build upon pretrained vision-language models and leverage diverse robot datasets to demonstrate strong task execution, language following ability, and semantic generalization. Despite these successes, VLAs struggle with novel robot setups and require fine-tuning to achieve good performance, yet how to most effectively fine-tune them is unclear given many possible strategies. In this work, we study key VLA adaptation design choices such as different action decoding schemes, action representations, and learning objectives for fine-tuning, using OpenVLA as our representative base model. Our empirical analysis informs an Optimized Fine-Tuning (OFT) recipe that integrates parallel decoding, action chunking, a continuous action representation, and a simple L1 regression-based learning objective to altogether improve inference efficiency, policy performance, and flexibility in the model's input-output specifications. We propose OpenVLA-OFT, an instantiation of this recipe, which sets a new state of the art on the LIBERO simulation benchmark, significantly boosting OpenVLA's average success rate across four task suites from 76.5% to 97.1% while increasing action generation throughput by 26$\times$. In real-world evaluations, our fine-tuning recipe enables OpenVLA to successfully execute dexterous, high-frequency control tasks on a bimanual ALOHA robot and outperform other VLAs ($\pi_0$ and RDT-1B) fine-tuned using their default recipes, as well as strong imitation learning policies trained from scratch (Diffusion Policy and ACT) by up to 15% (absolute) in average success rate. We release code for OFT and pretrained model checkpoints at https://openvla-oft.github.io/.

The Mighty ToRR: A Benchmark for Table Reasoning and Robustness

Despite its real-world significance, model performance on tabular data remains underexplored, leaving uncertainty about which model to rely on and which prompt configuration to adopt. To address this gap, we create ToRR, a benchmark for Table Reasoning and Robustness, that measures model performance and robustness on table-related tasks. The benchmark includes 10 datasets that cover different types of table reasoning capabilities across varied domains. ToRR goes beyond model performance rankings, and is designed to reflect whether models can handle tabular data consistently and robustly, across a variety of common table representation formats. We present a leaderboard as well as comprehensive analyses of the results of leading models over ToRR. Our results reveal a striking pattern of brittle model behavior, where even strong models are unable to perform robustly on tabular data tasks. Although no specific table format leads to consistently better performance, we show that testing over multiple formats is crucial for reliably estimating model capabilities. Moreover, we show that the reliability boost from testing multiple prompts can be equivalent to adding more test examples. Overall, our findings show that table understanding and reasoning tasks remain a significant challenge.

Independence Tests for Language Models

We consider the following problem: given the weights of two models, can we test whether they were trained independently -- i.e., from independent random initializations? We consider two settings: constrained and unconstrained. In the constrained setting, we make assumptions about model architecture and training and propose a family of statistical tests that yield exact p-values with respect to the null hypothesis that the models are trained from independent random initializations. These p-values are valid regardless of the composition of either model's training data; we compute them by simulating exchangeable copies of each model under our assumptions and comparing various similarity measures of weights and activations between the original two models versus these copies. We report the p-values from these tests on pairs of 21 open-weight models (210 total pairs) and correctly identify all pairs of non-independent models. Our tests remain effective even if one model was fine-tuned for many tokens. In the unconstrained setting, where we make no assumptions about training procedures, can change model architecture, and allow for adversarial evasion attacks, the previous tests no longer work. Instead, we propose a new test which matches hidden activations between two models, and which is robust to adversarial transformations and to changes in model architecture. The test can also do localized testing: identifying specific non-independent components of models. Though we no longer obtain exact p-values from this, empirically we find it behaves as one and reliably identifies non-independent models. Notably, we can use the test to identify specific parts of one model that are derived from another (e.g., how Llama 3.1-8B was pruned to initialize Llama 3.2-3B, or shared layers between Mistral-7B and StripedHyena-7B), and it is even robust to retraining individual layers of either model from scratch.

Auditing Prompt Caching in Language Model APIs

Prompt caching in large language models (LLMs) results in data-dependent timing variations: cached prompts are processed faster than non-cached prompts. These timing differences introduce the risk of side-channel timing attacks. For example, if the cache is shared across users, an attacker could identify cached prompts from fast API response times to learn information about other users' prompts. Because prompt caching may cause privacy leakage, transparency around the caching policies of API providers is important. To this end, we develop and conduct statistical audits to detect prompt caching in real-world LLM API providers. We detect global cache sharing across users in seven API providers, including OpenAI, resulting in potential privacy leakage about users' prompts. Timing variations due to prompt caching can also result in leakage of information about model architecture. Namely, we find evidence that OpenAI's embedding model is a decoder-only Transformer, which was previously not publicly known.

Eliciting Language Model Behaviors with Investigator Agents

Language models exhibit complex, diverse behaviors when prompted with free-form text, making it difficult to characterize the space of possible outputs. We study the problem of behavior elicitation, where the goal is to search for prompts that induce specific target behaviors (e.g., hallucinations or harmful responses) from a target language model. To navigate the exponentially large space of possible prompts, we train investigator models to map randomly-chosen target behaviors to a diverse distribution of outputs that elicit them, similar to amortized Bayesian inference. We do this through supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning via DPO, and a novel Frank-Wolfe training objective to iteratively discover diverse prompting strategies. Our investigator models surface a variety of effective and human-interpretable prompts leading to jailbreaks, hallucinations, and open-ended aberrant behaviors, obtaining a 100% attack success rate on a subset of AdvBench (Harmful Behaviors) and an 85% hallucination rate.

Language Models Prefer What They Know: Relative Confidence Estimation via Confidence Preferences

Language models (LMs) should provide reliable confidence estimates to help users detect mistakes in their outputs and defer to human experts when necessary. Asking a language model to assess its confidence ("Score your confidence from 0-1.") is a natural way of evaluating its uncertainty. However, models struggle to provide absolute assessments of confidence (i.e. judging confidence in answering a question independent of other questions) and the coarse-grained scores they produce are not useful for evaluating the correctness of their answers. We propose relative confidence estimation, where we match up questions against each other and ask the model to make relative judgments of confidence ("Which question are you more confident in answering correctly?"). Treating each question as a "player" in a series of matchups against other questions and the model's preferences as match outcomes, we can use rank aggregation methods like Elo rating and Bradley-Terry to translate the model's confidence preferences into confidence scores. We evaluate relative confidence estimation against absolute confidence estimation and self-consistency confidence methods on five state-of-the-art LMs -- GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Llama 3.1 405B -- across 14 challenging STEM, social science, and commonsense reasoning question answering tasks. Our results demonstrate that relative confidence estimation consistently provides more reliable confidence scores than absolute confidence estimation, with average gains of 3.5% in selective classification AUC over direct absolute confidence estimation methods and 1.7% over self-consistency approaches across all models and datasets.

s1: Simple test-time scaling

Test-time scaling is a promising new approach to language modeling that uses extra test-time compute to improve performance. Recently, OpenAI's o1 model showed this capability but did not publicly share its methodology, leading to many replication efforts. We seek the simplest approach to achieve test-time scaling and strong reasoning performance. First, we curate a small dataset s1K of 1,000 questions paired with reasoning traces relying on three criteria we validate through ablations: difficulty, diversity, and quality. Second, we develop budget forcing to control test-time compute by forcefully terminating the model's thinking process or lengthening it by appending "Wait" multiple times to the model's generation when it tries to end. This can lead the model to double-check its answer, often fixing incorrect reasoning steps. After supervised finetuning the Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct language model on s1K and equipping it with budget forcing, our model s1 exceeds o1-preview on competition math questions by up to 27% (MATH and AIME24). Further, scaling s1 with budget forcing allows extrapolating beyond its performance without test-time intervention: from 50% to 57% on AIME24. Our model, data, and code are open-source at https://github.com/simplescaling/s1.

International AI Safety Report

The first International AI Safety Report comprehensively synthesizes the current evidence on the capabilities, risks, and safety of advanced AI systems. The report was mandated by the nations attending the AI Safety Summit in Bletchley, UK. Thirty nations, the UN, the OECD, and the EU each nominated a representative to the report's Expert Advisory Panel. A total of 100 AI experts contributed, representing diverse perspectives and disciplines. Led by the report's Chair, these independent experts collectively had full discretion over the report's content.

Machine Unlearning Doesn't Do What You Think: Lessons for Generative AI Policy, Research, and Practice

We articulate fundamental mismatches between technical methods for machine unlearning in Generative AI, and documented aspirations for broader impact that these methods could have for law and policy. These aspirations are both numerous and varied, motivated by issues that pertain to privacy, copyright, safety, and more. For example, unlearning is often invoked as a solution for removing the effects of targeted information from a generative-AI model's parameters, e.g., a particular individual's personal data or in-copyright expression of Spiderman that was included in the model's training data. Unlearning is also proposed as a way to prevent a model from generating targeted types of information in its outputs, e.g., generations that closely resemble a particular individual's data or reflect the concept of "Spiderman." Both of these goals--the targeted removal of information from a model and the targeted suppression of information from a model's outputs--present various technical and substantive challenges. We provide a framework for thinking rigorously about these challenges, which enables us to be clear about why unlearning is not a general-purpose solution for circumscribing generative-AI model behavior in service of broader positive impact. We aim for conceptual clarity and to encourage more thoughtful communication among machine learning (ML), law, and policy experts who seek to develop and apply technical methods for compliance with policy objectives.