As Language Model (LM) capabilities advance, evaluating and supervising them at scale is getting harder for humans. There is hope that other language models can automate both these tasks, which we refer to as AI Oversight. We study how model similarity affects both aspects of AI oversight by proposing Chance Adjusted Probabilistic Agreement (CAPA)–a metric for LM similarity based on overlap in model mistakes. Using CAPA, we first show that LLM-as-a-judge scores favor models similar to the judge, generalizing recent self-preference results. Then, we study training on LM annotations, and find complementary knowledge between the weak supervisor and strong student model plays a crucial role in gains from weak-to-strong generalization. As model capabilities increase, it becomes harder to find their mistakes, and we might defer more to AI oversight. However, we observe a concerning trend–model mistakes are becoming more similar with increasing capabilities, pointing to risks from correlated failures. Our work underscores the importance of reporting and correcting for model similarity, especially in the emerging paradigm of AI oversight.

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are increasingly being used for a variety of ML applications on graph data. Because graph data does not follow the independently and identically distributed i.i.d. assumption, adversarial manipulations or incorrect data can propagate to other data points through message passing, which deteriorates the model’s performance. To allow model developers to remove the adverse effects of manipulated entities from a trained GNN, we study the recently formulated problem of Corrective Unlearning. We find that current graph unlearning methods fail to unlearn the effect of manipulations even when the whole manipulated set is known. We introduce a new graph unlearning method,Cognac, which can unlearn the effect of the manipulation set even when only $5$% of it is identified. It recovers most of the performance of a strong oracle with fully corrected training data, even beating retraining from scratch without the deletion set, and is $8$x more efficient while also scaling to large datasets. We hope our work assists GNN developers in mitigating harmful effects caused by issues in real-world data, post-training.

We study the problem of fair sequential decision making given voter preferences. In each round, a decision rule must choose a decision from a set of alternatives where each voter reports which of these alternatives they approve. Instead of going with the most popular choice in each round, we aim for proportional representation, using axioms inspired by the multi-winner voting literature. The axioms require that every group of α% of the voters, if it agrees in every round (i.e., approves a common alternative), then those voters must approve at least α% of the decisions. A stronger version of the axioms requires that every group of α% of the voters that agrees in a β fraction of rounds must approve β⋅α% of the decisions. We show that three attractive voting rules satisfy axioms of this style. One of them (Sequential Phragmén) makes its decisions online, and the other two satisfy strengthened versions of the axioms but make decisions semi-online (Method of Equal Shares) or fully offline (Proportional Approval Voting). We present empirical results for these rules based on synthetic data and U.S. political elections. We also run experiments using the moral machine dataset about ethical dilemmas. We train preference models on user responses from different countries and let the models cast votes. We find that aggregating these votes using our rules leads to a more equal utility distribution across demographics than making decisions using a single global preference model.

The White House Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence highlights the risks of large language models (LLMs) empowering malicious actors in developing biological, cyber, and chemical weapons. To measure these risks, government institutions and major AI labs are developing evaluations for hazardous capabilities in LLMs. However, current evaluations are private and restricted to a narrow range of malicious use scenarios, which limits further research into reducing malicious use. To fill these gaps, we release the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proxy (WMDP) benchmark, a dataset of 3,668 multiple-choice questions that serve as a proxy measurement of hazardous knowledge in biosecurity, cybersecurity, and chemical security. To guide progress on unlearning, we develop RMU, a state-of-the-art unlearning method based on controlling model representations. RMU reduces model performance on WMDP while maintaining general capabilities in areas such as biology and computer science, suggesting that unlearning may be a concrete path towards reducing malicious use from LLMs. We release our benchmark and code publicly at https://wmdp.ai.