Mechanistic Interpretability of ASR models using Sparse Autoencoders

Understanding the internal machinations of deep Transformer-based NLP models is more crucial than ever as these models see widespread use in various domains that affect the public at large, such as industry, academia, finance, health. While these models have advanced rapidly, their internal mechanisms remain largely a mystery. Techniques such as Sparse Autoencoders (SAE) have emerged to understand these mechanisms by projecting dense representations into a sparse vector. While existing research has demonstrated the viability of the SAE in interpreting text-based Large Language Models (LLMs), there are no equivalent studies that demonstrate the application of a SAE to audio processing models like Automatic Speech Recognizers (ASRs). In this work, a SAE is applied to Whisper, a Transformer-based ASR, training a high-dimensional sparse latent space on frame-level embeddings extracted from the Whisper encoder. Our work uncovers diverse monosemantic features across linguistic and non-linguistic boundaries, and demonstrates cross-lingual feature steering. This work establishes the viability of a SAE model and demonstrates that Whisper encodes a rich amount of linguistic information.

How susceptible are LLMs to Logical Fallacies?

This paper investigates the rational thinking capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-round argumentative debates by exploring the impact of fallacious arguments on their logical reasoning performance. More specifically, we present Logic Competence Measurement Benchmark (LOGICOM), a diagnostic benchmark to assess the robustness of LLMs against logical fallacies. LOGICOM involves two agents: a persuader and a debater engaging in a multi-round debate on a controversial topic, where the persuader tries to convince the debater of the correctness of its claim. First, LOGICOM assesses the potential of LLMs to change their opinions through reasoning. Then, it evaluates the debater's performance in logical reasoning by contrasting the scenario where the persuader employs logical fallacies against one where logical reasoning is used. We use this benchmark to evaluate the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 using a dataset containing controversial topics, claims, and reasons supporting them. Our findings indicate that both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adjust their opinion through reasoning. However, when presented with logical fallacies, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are erroneously convinced 41% and 69% more often, respectively, compared to when logical reasoning is used. Finally, we introduce a new dataset containing over 5k pairs of logical vs. fallacious arguments. The source code and dataset of this work are made publicly available.