Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Alex Mallen

dblp:294/8452 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · unresolved

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 1 first-author · 4 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
4 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 53% Language models and text generation · 25% Representation and self-supervised learning · 11%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
1.122025
Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language Models · ICML 2025
Why Do Some Language Models Fake Alignment While Others Don't? · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
feature interpretation
0.912025
Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language Models · ICML 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model
0.912025
Why Do Some Language Models Fake Alignment While Others Don't? · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › mechanistic interpretability
sparse autoencoder
0.912025
Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language Models · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
training dynamics
0.812024
Neural Networks Learn Statistics of Increasing Complexity · ICML 2024
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
language model analysis
0.312025
Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language Models · ICML 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

sparse autoencoder · 0.9large language model · 0.9intervention scoring · 0.9hypothesis testing · 0.9behavioral evaluation · 0.9optimal transport · 0.8n-gram frequency analysis · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language Models
abstract
While the activations of neurons in deep neural networks usually do not have a simple human-understandable interpretation, sparse autoencoders (SAEs) can be used to transform these activations into a higher-dimensional latent space which can be more easily interpretable. However, SAEs can have millions of distinct latents, making it infeasible for humans to manually interpret each one. In this work, we build an open-source automated pipeline to generate and evaluate natural language interpretations for SAE latents using LLMs. We test our framework on SAEs of varying sizes, activation functions, and losses, trained on two different open-weight LLMs. We introduce five new techniques to score the quality of interpretations that are cheaper to run than the previous state of the art. One of these techniques, intervention scoring, evaluates the interpretability of the effects of intervening on a latent, which we find explains latents that are not recalled by existing methods. We propose guidelines for generating better interpretations that remain valid for a broader set of activating contexts, and discuss pitfalls with existing scoring techniques. Our code is available at https://github.com/EleutherAI/delphi.
Gonçalo Paulo, Alex Mallen, Caden Juang, Nora Belrose
ICML2
2025 Why Do Some Language Models Fake Alignment While Others Don't?
abstract
*Alignment Faking in Large Language Models* presented a demonstration of Claude 3 Opus and Claude 3.5 Sonnet selectively complying with a helpful-only training objective to prevent modification of their behavior outside of training. We expand this analysis to 25 models and find that only 5 (Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Llama 3 405B, Grok 3, Gemini 2.0 Flash) comply with harmful queries more when they infer they are in training than when they infer they are in deployment. First, we study the motivations of these 5 models. Results from perturbing details of the scenario suggest that only Claude 3 Opus's compliance gap is primarily and consistently motivated by trying to keep its goals. Second, we investigate why many chat models don't fake alignment. Our results suggest this is not entirely due to a lack of capabilities: many base models fake alignment some of the time, and post-training eliminates alignment-faking for some models and amplifies it for others. We investigate 5 hypotheses for how post-training may suppress alignment faking and find that variations in refusal behavior may account for a significant portion of differences in alignment faking.
Abhay Sheshadri, Julian Michael, Alex Mallen, Arun Jose, Fabien Roger
NeurIPS4
2024 Neural Networks Learn Statistics of Increasing Complexity
abstract
The _distributional simplicity bias_ (DSB) posits that neural networks learn low-order moments of the data distribution first, before moving on to higher-order correlations. In this work, we present compelling new evidence for the DSB by showing that networks automatically learn to perform well on maximum-entropy distributions whose low-order statistics match those of the training set early in training, then lose this ability later. We also extend the DSB to discrete domains by proving an equivalence between token $n$-gram frequencies and the moments of embedding vectors, and by finding empirical evidence for the bias in LLMs. Finally we use optimal transport methods to surgically edit the low-order statistics of one class to match those of another, and show that early-training networks treat the edited samples as if they were drawn from the target class. Code is available at https://github.com/EleutherAI/features-across-time.
Nora Belrose, Quintin Pope, Lucia Quirke, Alex Mallen, Xiaoli Z. Fern
ICML4
2023 When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memories
abstract
Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2023.
Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, Hannaneh Hajishirzi
ACL (1)1