Learning to Forget using Hypernetworks

Machine unlearning is gaining increasing attention as a way to remove adversarial data poisoning attacks from already trained models and to comply with privacy and AI regulations. The objective is to unlearn the effect of undesired data from a trained model while maintaining performance on the remaining data. This paper introduces HyperForget, a novel machine unlearning framework that leverages hypernetworks - neural networks that generate parameters for other networks - to dynamically sample models that lack knowledge of targeted data while preserving essential capabilities. Leveraging diffusion models, we implement two Diffusion HyperForget Networks and used them to sample unlearned models in Proof-of-Concept experiments. The unlearned models obtained zero accuracy on the forget set, while preserving good accuracy on the retain sets, highlighting the potential of HyperForget for dynamic targeted data removal and a promising direction for developing adaptive machine unlearning algorithms.

Comparing Bottom-Up and Top-Down Steering Approaches on In-Context Learning Tasks

A key objective of interpretability research on large language models (LLMs) is to develop methods for robustly steering models toward desired behaviors. To this end, two distinct approaches to interpretability -- ``bottom-up" and ``top-down" -- have been presented, but there has been little quantitative comparison between them. We present a case study comparing the effectiveness of representative vector steering methods from each branch: function vectors (FV; arXiv:2310.15213), as a bottom-up method, and in-context vectors (ICV; arXiv:2311.06668) as a top-down method. While both aim to capture compact representations of broad in-context learning tasks, we find they are effective only on specific types of tasks: ICVs outperform FVs in behavioral shifting, whereas FVs excel in tasks requiring more precision. We discuss the implications for future evaluations of steering methods and for further research into top-down and bottom-up steering given these findings.

Noisy Zero-Shot Coordination: Breaking The Common Knowledge Assumption In Zero-Shot Coordination Games

Zero-shot coordination (ZSC) is a popular setting for studying the ability of reinforcement learning (RL) agents to coordinate with novel partners. Prior ZSC formulations assume the $\textit{problem setting}$ is common knowledge: each agent knows the underlying Dec-POMDP, knows others have this knowledge, and so on ad infinitum. However, this assumption rarely holds in complex real-world settings, which are often difficult to fully and correctly specify. Hence, in settings where this common knowledge assumption is invalid, agents trained using ZSC methods may not be able to coordinate well. To address this limitation, we formulate the $\textit{noisy zero-shot coordination}$ (NZSC) problem. In NZSC, agents observe different noisy versions of the ground truth Dec-POMDP, which are assumed to be distributed according to a fixed noise model. Only the distribution of ground truth Dec-POMDPs and the noise model are common knowledge. We show that a NZSC problem can be reduced to a ZSC problem by designing a meta-Dec-POMDP with an augmented state space consisting of all the ground-truth Dec-POMDPs. For solving NZSC problems, we propose a simple and flexible meta-learning method called NZSC training, in which the agents are trained across a distribution of coordination problems - which they only get to observe noisy versions of. We show that with NZSC training, RL agents can be trained to coordinate well with novel partners even when the (exact) problem setting of the coordination is not common knowledge.

Adversarial Robustness of In-Context Learning in Transformers for Linear Regression

Transformers have demonstrated remarkable in-context learning capabilities across various domains, including statistical learning tasks. While previous work has shown that transformers can implement common learning algorithms, the adversarial robustness of these learned algorithms remains unexplored. This work investigates the vulnerability of in-context learning in transformers to \textit{hijacking attacks} focusing on the setting of linear regression tasks. Hijacking attacks are prompt-manipulation attacks in which the adversary's goal is to manipulate the prompt to force the transformer to generate a specific output. We first prove that single-layer linear transformers, known to implement gradient descent in-context, are non-robust and can be manipulated to output arbitrary predictions by perturbing a single example in the in-context training set. While our experiments show these attacks succeed on linear transformers, we find they do not transfer to more complex transformers with GPT-2 architectures. Nonetheless, we show that these transformers can be hijacked using gradient-based adversarial attacks. We then demonstrate that adversarial training enhances transformers' robustness against hijacking attacks, even when just applied during finetuning. Additionally, we find that in some settings, adversarial training against a weaker attack model can lead to robustness to a stronger attack model. Lastly, we investigate the transferability of hijacking attacks across transformers of varying scales and initialization seeds, as well as between transformers and ordinary least squares (OLS). We find that while attacks transfer effectively between small-scale transformers, they show poor transferability in other scenarios (small-to-large scale, large-to-large scale, and between transformers and OLS).

Predicting Future Actions of Reinforcement Learning Agents

As reinforcement learning agents become increasingly deployed in real-world scenarios, predicting future agent actions and events during deployment is important for facilitating better human-agent interaction and preventing catastrophic outcomes. This paper experimentally evaluates and compares the effectiveness of future action and event prediction for three types of RL agents: explicitly planning, implicitly planning, and non-planning. We employ two approaches: the inner state approach, which involves predicting based on the inner computations of the agents (e.g., plans or neuron activations), and a simulation-based approach, which involves unrolling the agent in a learned world model. Our results show that the plans of explicitly planning agents are significantly more informative for prediction than the neuron activations of the other types. Furthermore, using internal plans proves more robust to model quality compared to simulation-based approaches when predicting actions, while the results for event prediction are more mixed. These findings highlight the benefits of leveraging inner states and simulations to predict future agent actions and events, thereby improving interaction and safety in real-world deployments.

Integrating uncertainty quantification into randomized smoothing based robustness guarantees

Deep neural networks have proven to be extremely powerful, however, they are also vulnerable to adversarial attacks which can cause hazardous incorrect predictions in safety-critical applications. Certified robustness via randomized smoothing gives a probabilistic guarantee that the smoothed classifier's predictions will not change within an $\ell_2$-ball around a given input. On the other hand (uncertainty) score-based rejection is a technique often applied in practice to defend models against adversarial attacks. In this work, we fuse these two approaches by integrating a classifier that abstains from predicting when uncertainty is high into the certified robustness framework. This allows us to derive two novel robustness guarantees for uncertainty aware classifiers, namely (i) the radius of an $\ell_2$-ball around the input in which the same label is predicted and uncertainty remains low and (ii) the $\ell_2$-radius of a ball in which the predictions will either not change or be uncertain. While the former provides robustness guarantees with respect to attacks aiming at increased uncertainty, the latter informs about the amount of input perturbation necessary to lead the uncertainty aware model into a wrong prediction. Notably, this is on CIFAR10 up to 20.93% larger than for models not allowing for uncertainty based rejection. We demonstrate, that the novel framework allows for a systematic robustness evaluation of different network architectures and uncertainty measures and to identify desired properties of uncertainty quantification techniques. Moreover, we show that leveraging uncertainty in a smoothed classifier helps out-of-distribution detection.

Towards Reliable Evaluation of Behavior Steering Interventions in LLMs

Representation engineering methods have recently shown promise for enabling efficient steering of model behavior. However, evaluation pipelines for these methods have primarily relied on subjective demonstrations, instead of quantitative, objective metrics. We aim to take a step towards addressing this issue by advocating for four properties missing from current evaluations: (i) contexts sufficiently similar to downstream tasks should be used for assessing intervention quality; (ii) model likelihoods should be accounted for; (iii) evaluations should allow for standardized comparisons across different target behaviors; and (iv) baseline comparisons should be offered. We introduce an evaluation pipeline grounded in these criteria, offering both a quantitative and visual analysis of how effectively a given method works. We use this pipeline to evaluate two representation engineering methods on how effectively they can steer behaviors such as truthfulness and corrigibility, finding that some interventions are less effective than previously reported.

Influence Functions for Scalable Data Attribution in Diffusion Models

Diffusion models have led to significant advancements in generative modelling. Yet their widespread adoption poses challenges regarding data attribution and interpretability. In this paper, we aim to help address such challenges in diffusion models by developing an \textit{influence functions} framework. Influence function-based data attribution methods approximate how a model's output would have changed if some training data were removed. In supervised learning, this is usually used for predicting how the loss on a particular example would change. For diffusion models, we focus on predicting the change in the probability of generating a particular example via several proxy measurements. We show how to formulate influence functions for such quantities and how previously proposed methods can be interpreted as particular design choices in our framework. To ensure scalability of the Hessian computations in influence functions, we systematically develop K-FAC approximations based on generalised Gauss-Newton matrices specifically tailored to diffusion models. We recast previously proposed methods as specific design choices in our framework and show that our recommended method outperforms previous data attribution approaches on common evaluations, such as the Linear Data-modelling Score (LDS) or retraining without top influences, without the need for method-specific hyperparameter tuning.

Analyzing (In)Abilities of SAEs via Formal Languages

Autoencoders have been used for finding interpretable and disentangled features underlying neural network representations in both image and text domains. While the efficacy and pitfalls of such methods are well-studied in vision, there is a lack of corresponding results, both qualitative and quantitative, for the text domain. We aim to address this gap by training sparse autoencoders (SAEs) on a synthetic testbed of formal languages. Specifically, we train SAEs on the hidden representations of models trained on formal languages (Dyck-2, Expr, and English PCFG) under a wide variety of hyperparameter settings, finding interpretable latents often emerge in the features learned by our SAEs. However, similar to vision, we find performance turns out to be highly sensitive to inductive biases of the training pipeline. Moreover, we show latents correlating to certain features of the input do not always induce a causal impact on model's computation. We thus argue that causality has to become a central target in SAE training: learning of causal features should be incentivized from the ground-up. Motivated by this, we propose and perform preliminary investigations for an approach that promotes learning of causally relevant features in our formal language setting.

PoisonBench: Assessing Large Language Model Vulnerability to Data Poisoning

Preference learning is a central component for aligning current LLMs, but this process can be vulnerable to data poisoning attacks. To address this concern, we introduce PoisonBench, a benchmark for evaluating large language models' susceptibility to data poisoning during preference learning. Data poisoning attacks can manipulate large language model responses to include hidden malicious content or biases, potentially causing the model to generate harmful or unintended outputs while appearing to function normally. We deploy two distinct attack types across eight realistic scenarios, assessing 21 widely-used models. Our findings reveal concerning trends: (1) Scaling up parameter size does not inherently enhance resilience against poisoning attacks; (2) There exists a log-linear relationship between the effects of the attack and the data poison ratio; (3) The effect of data poisoning can generalize to extrapolated triggers that are not included in the poisoned data. These results expose weaknesses in current preference learning techniques, highlighting the urgent need for more robust defenses against malicious models and data manipulation.