Patchscopes: A Unifying Framework for Inspecting Hidden Representations of Language Models

Inspecting the information encoded in hidden representations of large language models (LLMs) can explain models' behavior and verify their alignment with human values. Given the capabilities of LLMs in generating human-understandable text, we propose leveraging the model itself to explain its internal representations in natural language. We introduce a framework called Patchscopes and show how it can be used to answer a wide range of questions about an LLM's computation. We show that prior interpretability methods based on projecting representations into the vocabulary space and intervening on the LLM computation can be viewed as instances of this framework. Moreover, several of their shortcomings such as failure in inspecting early layers or lack of expressivity can be mitigated by Patchscopes. Beyond unifying prior inspection techniques, Patchscopes also opens up new possibilities such as using a more capable model to explain the representations of a smaller model, and unlocks new applications such as self-correction in multi-hop reasoning.

Interpretability Illusions in the Generalization of Simplified Models

A common method to study deep learning systems is to use simplified model representations -- for example, using singular value decomposition to visualize the model's hidden states in a lower dimensional space. This approach assumes that the results of these simplified are faithful to the original model. Here, we illustrate an important caveat to this assumption: even if the simplified representations can accurately approximate the full model on the training set, they may fail to accurately capture the model's behavior out of distribution -- the understanding developed from simplified representations may be an illusion. We illustrate this by training Transformer models on controlled datasets with systematic generalization splits. First, we train models on the Dyck balanced-parenthesis languages. We simplify these models using tools like dimensionality reduction and clustering, and then explicitly test how these simplified proxies match the behavior of the original model on various out-of-distribution test sets. We find that the simplified proxies are generally less faithful out of distribution. In cases where the original model generalizes to novel structures or deeper depths, the simplified versions may fail, or generalize better. This finding holds even if the simplified representations do not directly depend on the training distribution. Next, we study a more naturalistic task: predicting the next character in a dataset of computer code. We find similar generalization gaps between the original model and simplified proxies, and conduct further analysis to investigate which aspects of the code completion task are associated with the largest gaps. Together, our results raise questions about the extent to which mechanistic interpretations derived using tools like SVD can reliably predict what a model will do in novel situations.

Post Hoc Explanations of Language Models Can Improve Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in performing complex tasks. Moreover, recent research has shown that incorporating human-annotated rationales (e.g., Chain-of- Thought prompting) during in-context learning can significantly enhance the performance of these models, particularly on tasks that require reasoning capabilities. However, incorporating such rationales poses challenges in terms of scalability as this requires a high degree of human involvement. In this work, we present a novel framework, Amplifying Model Performance by Leveraging In-Context Learning with Post Hoc Explanations (AMPLIFY), which addresses the aforementioned challenges by automating the process of rationale generation. To this end, we leverage post hoc explanation methods which output attribution scores (explanations) capturing the influence of each of the input features on model predictions. More specifically, we construct automated natural language rationales that embed insights from post hoc explanations to provide corrective signals to LLMs. Extensive experimentation with real-world datasets demonstrates that our framework, AMPLIFY, leads to prediction accuracy improvements of about 10-25% over a wide range of tasks, including those where prior approaches which rely on human-annotated rationales such as Chain-of-Thought prompting fall short. Our work makes one of the first attempts at highlighting the potential of post hoc explanations as valuable tools for enhancing the effectiveness of LLMs. Furthermore, we conduct additional empirical analyses and ablation studies to demonstrate the impact of each of the components of AMPLIFY, which, in turn, lead to critical insights for refining in-context learning.

Mixed Effects Random Forests for Personalised Predictions of Clinical Depression Severity

This work demonstrates how mixed effects random forests enable accurate predictions of depression severity using multimodal physiological and digital activity data collected from an 8-week study involving 31 patients with major depressive disorder. We show that mixed effects random forests outperform standard random forests and personal average baselines when predicting clinical Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (HDRS_17). Compared to the latter baseline, accuracy is significantly improved for each patient by an average of 0.199-0.276 in terms of mean absolute error (p<0.05). This is noteworthy as these simple baselines frequently outperform machine learning methods in mental health prediction tasks. We suggest that this improved performance results from the ability of the mixed effects random forest to personalise model parameters to individuals in the dataset. However, we find that these improvements pertain exclusively to scenarios where labelled patient data are available to the model at training time. Investigating methods that improve accuracy when generalising to new patients is left as important future work.

Does Localization Inform Editing? Surprising Differences in Causality-Based Localization vs. Knowledge Editing in Language Models

Language models are known to learn a great quantity of factual information during pretraining, and recent work localizes this information to specific model weights like mid-layer MLP weights (Meng et al., 2022). In this paper, we find that we can change how a fact is stored in a model by editing weights that are in a different location than where existing methods suggest that the fact is stored. This is surprising because we would expect that localizing facts to specific parameters in models would tell us where to manipulate knowledge in models, and this assumption has motivated past work on model editing methods. Specifically, we show that localization conclusions from representation denoising (also known as Causal Tracing) do not provide any insight into which model MLP layer would be best to edit in order to override an existing stored fact with a new one. This finding raises questions about how past work relies on Causal Tracing to select which model layers to edit (Meng et al., 2022). Next, to better understand the discrepancy between representation denoising and weight editing, we develop several variants of the editing problem that appear more and more like representation denoising in their design and objective. Experiments show that, for one of our editing problems, editing performance does relate to localization results from representation denoising, but we find that which layer we edit is a far better predictor of performance. Our results suggest, counterintuitively, that better mechanistic understanding of how pretrained language models work may not always translate to insights about how to best change their behavior. Code is available at: https://github.com/google/belief-localization

DISSECT: Disentangled Simultaneous Explanations via Concept Traversals

Explaining deep learning model inferences is a promising venue for scientific understanding, improving safety, uncovering hidden biases, evaluating fairness, and beyond, as argued by many scholars. One of the principal benefits of counterfactual explanations is allowing users to explore "what-if" scenarios through what does not and cannot exist in the data, a quality that many other forms of explanation such as heatmaps and influence functions are inherently incapable of doing. However, most previous work on generative explainability cannot disentangle important concepts effectively, produces unrealistic examples, or fails to retain relevant information. We propose a novel approach, DISSECT, that jointly trains a generator, a discriminator, and a concept disentangler to overcome such challenges using little supervision. DISSECT generates Concept Traversals (CTs), defined as a sequence of generated examples with increasing degrees of concepts that influence a classifier's decision. By training a generative model from a classifier's signal, DISSECT offers a way to discover a classifier's inherent "notion" of distinct concepts automatically rather than rely on user-predefined concepts. We show that DISSECT produces CTs that (1) disentangle several concepts, (2) are influential to a classifier's decision and are coupled to its reasoning due to joint training (3), are realistic, (4) preserve relevant information, and (5) are stable across similar inputs. We validate DISSECT on several challenging synthetic and realistic datasets where previous methods fall short of satisfying desirable criteria for interpretability and show that it performs consistently well and better than existing methods. Finally, we present experiments showing applications of DISSECT for detecting potential biases of a classifier and identifying spurious artifacts that impact predictions.

Human-centric Dialog Training via Offline Reinforcement Learning

How can we train a dialog model to produce better conversations by learning from human feedback, without the risk of humans teaching it harmful chat behaviors? We start by hosting models online, and gather human feedback from real-time, open-ended conversations, which we then use to train and improve the models using offline reinforcement learning (RL). We identify implicit conversational cues including language similarity, elicitation of laughter, sentiment, and more, which indicate positive human feedback, and embed these in multiple reward functions. A well-known challenge is that learning an RL policy in an offline setting usually fails due to the lack of ability to explore and the tendency to make over-optimistic estimates of future reward. These problems become even harder when using RL for language models, which can easily have a 20,000 action vocabulary and many possible reward functions. We solve the challenge by developing a novel class of offline RL algorithms. These algorithms use KL-control to penalize divergence from a pre-trained prior language model, and use a new strategy to make the algorithm pessimistic, instead of optimistic, in the face of uncertainty. We test the resulting dialog model with ratings from 80 users in an open-domain setting and find it achieves significant improvements over existing deep offline RL approaches. The novel offline RL method is viable for improving any existing generative dialog model using a static dataset of human feedback.

Characterizing Sources of Uncertainty to Proxy Calibration and Disambiguate Annotator and Data Bias

Supporting model interpretability for complex phenomena where annotators can legitimately disagree, such as emotion recognition, is a challenging machine learning task. In this work, we show that explicitly quantifying the uncertainty in such settings has interpretability benefits. We use a simple modification of a classical network inference using Monte Carlo dropout to give measures of epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty. We identify a significant correlation between aleatoric uncertainty and human annotator disagreement ($r\approx.3$). Additionally, we demonstrate how difficult and subjective training samples can be identified using aleatoric uncertainty and how epistemic uncertainty can reveal data bias that could result in unfair predictions. We identify the total uncertainty as a suitable surrogate for model calibration, i.e. the degree we can trust model's predicted confidence. In addition to explainability benefits, we observe modest performance boosts from incorporating model uncertainty.

Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning for Open-Domain Dialog

Open-domain dialog generation is a challenging problem; maximum likelihood training can lead to repetitive outputs, models have difficulty tracking long-term conversational goals, and training on standard movie or online datasets may lead to the generation of inappropriate, biased, or offensive text. Reinforcement Learning (RL) is a powerful framework that could potentially address these issues, for example by allowing a dialog model to optimize for reducing toxicity and repetitiveness. However, previous approaches which apply RL to open-domain dialog generation do so at the word level, making it difficult for the model to learn proper credit assignment for long-term conversational rewards. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to hierarchical reinforcement learning, VHRL, which uses policy gradients to tune the utterance-level embedding of a variational sequence model. This hierarchical approach provides greater flexibility for learning long-term, conversational rewards. We use self-play and RL to optimize for a set of human-centered conversation metrics, and show that our approach provides significant improvements -- in terms of both human evaluation and automatic metrics -- over state-of-the-art dialog models, including Transformers.