Monitoring Latent World States in Language Models with Propositional Probes

arXiv · PDF · Open in the Atlas

Code that ran

We lifted 2 functions out of this paper's own repositories and ran 2 of them in a sandbox. "Ran" means the function executed on a synthesized input and returned a value. It is not a reproduction of the paper's results.

Repositories linked to this paper

• jiahai-feng/prop-probes-iclr — marked official in Papers with Code; named in the paper

Some links come from the archived Papers with Code dataset (CC BY-SA 4.0): attribution and licence.

Abstract

Language models are susceptible to bias, sycophancy, backdoors, and other tendencies that lead to unfaithful responses to the input context. Interpreting internal states of language models could help monitor and correct unfaithful behavior. We hypothesize that language models represent their input contexts in a latent world model, and seek to extract this latent world state from the activations. We do so with 'propositional probes', which compositionally probe tokens for lexical information and bind them into logical propositions representing the world state. For example, given the input context ''Greg is a nurse. Laura is a physicist.'', we decode the propositions ''WorksAs(Greg, nurse)'' and ''WorksAs(Laura, physicist)'' from the model's activations. Key to this is identifying a 'binding subspace' in which bound tokens have high similarity (''Greg'' and ''nurse'') but unbound ones do not (''Greg'' and ''physicist''). We validate propositional probes in a closed-world setting with finitely many predicates and properties. Despite being trained on simple templated contexts, propositional probes generalize to contexts rewritten as short stories and translated to Spanish. Moreover, we find that in three settings where language models respond unfaithfully to the input context -- prompt injections, backdoor attacks, and gender bias -- the decoded propositions remain faithful. This suggests that language models often encode a faithful world model but decode it unfaithfully, which motivates the search for better interpretability tools for monitoring LMs.

For agents

The same record, over MCP at https://syntology.ai/mcp:

get_harvested_code_for_paper("2406.19501")
get_code_for_paper("2406.19501")
have("2406.19501")

Connect an agent — have() is free.