GRIN Transfer: A production-ready tool for libraries to retrieve digital copies from Google Books

Publicly launched in 2004, the Google Books project has scanned tens of millions of items in partnership with libraries around the world. As part of this project, Google created the Google Return Interface (GRIN). Through this platform, libraries can access their scanned collections, the associated metadata, and the ongoing OCR and metadata improvements that become available as Google reprocesses these collections using new technologies. When downloading the Harvard Library Google Books collection from GRIN to develop the Institutional Books dataset, we encountered several challenges related to rate-limiting and atomized metadata within the GRIN platform. To overcome these challenges and help other libraries make more robust use of their Google Books collections, this technical report introduces the initial release of GRIN Transfer. This open-source and production-ready Python pipeline allows partner libraries to efficiently retrieve their Google Books collections from GRIN. This report also introduces an updated version of our Institutional Books 1.0 pipeline, initially used to analyze, augment, and assemble the Institutional Books 1.0 dataset. We have revised this pipeline for compatibility with the output format of GRIN Transfer. A library could pair these two tools to create an end-to-end processing pipeline for their Google Books collection to retrieve, structure, and enhance data available from GRIN. This report gives an overview of how GRIN Transfer was designed to optimize for reliability and usability in different environments, as well as guidance on configuration for various use cases.

Institutional Books 1.0: A 242B token dataset from Harvard Library's collections, refined for accuracy and usability

Large language models (LLMs) use data to learn about the world in order to produce meaningful correlations and predictions. As such, the nature, scale, quality, and diversity of the datasets used to train these models, or to support their work at inference time, have a direct impact on their quality. The rapid development and adoption of LLMs of varying quality has brought into focus the scarcity of publicly available, high-quality training data and revealed an urgent need to ground the stewardship of these datasets in sustainable practices with clear provenance chains. To that end, this technical report introduces Institutional Books 1.0, a large collection of public domain books originally digitized through Harvard Library's participation in the Google Books project, beginning in 2006. Working with Harvard Library, we extracted, analyzed, and processed these volumes into an extensively-documented dataset of historic texts. This analysis covers the entirety of Harvard Library's collection scanned as part of that project, originally spanning 1,075,899 volumes written in over 250 different languages for a total of approximately 250 billion tokens. As part of this initial release, the OCR-extracted text (original and post-processed) as well as the metadata (bibliographic, source, and generated) of the 983,004 volumes, or 242B tokens, identified as being in the public domain have been made available. This report describes this project's goals and methods as well as the results of the analyses we performed, all in service of making this historical collection more accessible and easier for humans and machines alike to filter, read and use.

SEAL: Systematic Error Analysis for Value ALignment

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) aims to align language models (LMs) with human values by training reward models (RMs) on binary preferences and using these RMs to fine-tune the base LMs. Despite its importance, the internal mechanisms of RLHF remain poorly understood. This paper introduces new metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of modeling and aligning human values, namely feature imprint, alignment resistance and alignment robustness. We categorize alignment datasets into target features (desired values) and spoiler features (undesired concepts). By regressing RM scores against these features, we quantify the extent to which RMs reward them - a metric we term feature imprint. We define alignment resistance as the proportion of the preference dataset where RMs fail to match human preferences, and we assess alignment robustness by analyzing RM responses to perturbed inputs. Our experiments, utilizing open-source components like the Anthropic/hh-rlhf preference dataset and OpenAssistant RMs, reveal significant imprints of target features and a notable sensitivity to spoiler features. We observed a 26% incidence of alignment resistance in portions of the dataset where LM-labelers disagreed with human preferences. Furthermore, we find that misalignment often arises from ambiguous entries within the alignment dataset. These findings underscore the importance of scrutinizing both RMs and alignment datasets for a deeper understanding of value alignment.