arXiv preprint ·
An Investigation of Model Coherence: Narrow Finetunes Contradict Themselves Under Resampling
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
A large body of research measures model coherence based on output variance without adequately considering competing causes. We identify two such causes, ambiguity and indifference, and we introduce a set of 175 questions where contradicting answers cannot easily be explained by either. We then measure incoherence in terms of contradictions when resampling answers to the same question. In contrast to other methods our metric has high specificity, and only ranks models as incoherent when the issues are glaring. Even so, we find narrow finetunes score poorly. Inspecting inconsistencies flagged by our method, we find that model organisms from the literature display severe issues such as identity conflation, introspection failures and rationalizations. These findings suggest that the pathologies induced by narrow finetuning may limit what these models can tell us about coherent misaligned behaviour.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Mid-Training Language Models on Raw Video
Reward Hacking as a Transmissible Strategy in Multi-Agent Coding Systems
Intent Graph: Navigating the Analytical Reasoning Space for Exploratory Data Analysis
COFFEQA: Counterfactual-Guided Few-Shot Distillation for LLM Question Answering
NOMOS: Compiling Written Policies into Statically Verified Tool-Call Gates for LLM Agents
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.