Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Nicholas Goldowsky-Dill

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

3 papers
2 author rows

Possible papers

3

ICML Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Detecting Strategic Deception with Linear Probes

  • Nicholas Goldowsky-Dill
  • Bilal Chughtai
  • Stefan Heimersheim
  • Marius Hobbhahn

AI models might use deceptive strategies as part of scheming or misaligned behaviour. Monitoring outputs alone is insufficient, since the AI might produce seemingly benign outputs while its internal reasoning is misaligned. We thus evaluate if linear probes can robustly detect deception by monitoring model activations. We test two probe-training datasets, one with contrasting instructions to be honest or deceptive (following Zou et al. (2023)) and one of responses to simple roleplaying scenarios. We test whether these probes generalize to realistic settings where Llama-3. 3-70B-Instruct behaves deceptively, such as concealing insider trading Scheurer et al. (2023) and purposely underperforming on safety evaluations Benton et al. (2024). We find that our probe distinguishes honest and deceptive responses with AUROCs between 0. 96 and 0. 999 on our evaluation datasets. If we set the decision threshold to have a 1% false positive rate on chat data not related to deception, our probe catches 95-99% of the deceptive responses. Overall we think white-box probes are promising for future monitoring systems, but current performance is insufficient as a robust defence against deception. Our probes’ outputs can be viewed at https: //data. apolloresearch. ai/dd/ and our code at https: //github. com/ApolloResearch/deception-detection.

TMLR Journal 2025 Journal Article

Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretability

  • Lee Sharkey
  • Bilal Chughtai
  • Joshua Batson
  • Jack Lindsey
  • Jeffrey Wu
  • Lucius Bushnaq
  • Nicholas Goldowsky-Dill
  • Stefan Heimersheim

Mechanistic interpretability aims to understand the computational mechanisms underlying neural networks' capabilities in order to accomplish concrete scientific and engineering goals. Progress in this field thus promises to provide greater assurance over AI system behavior and shed light on exciting scientific questions about the nature of intelligence. Despite recent progress toward these goals, there are many open problems in the field that require solutions before many scientific and practical benefits can be realized: Our methods require both conceptual and practical improvements to reveal deeper insights; we must figure out how best to apply our methods in pursuit of specific goals; and the field must grapple with socio-technical challenges that influence and are influenced by our work. This forward-facing review discusses the current frontier of mechanistic interpretability and the open problems that the field may benefit from prioritizing.

NeurIPS Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Identifying Functionally Important Features with End-to-End Sparse Dictionary Learning

  • Dan Braun
  • Jordan Taylor
  • Nicholas Goldowsky-Dill
  • Lee Sharkey

Identifying the features learned by neural networks is a core challenge in mechanistic interpretability. Sparse autoencoders (SAEs), which learn a sparse, overcomplete dictionary that reconstructs a network's internal activations, have been used to identify these features. However, SAEs may learn more about the structure of the datatset than the computational structure of the network. There is therefore only indirect reason to believe that the directions found in these dictionaries are functionally important to the network. We propose end-to-end (e2e) sparse dictionary learning, a method for training SAEs that ensures the features learned are functionally important by minimizing the KL divergence between the output distributions of the original model and the model with SAE activations inserted. Compared to standard SAEs, e2e SAEs offer a Pareto improvement: They explain more network performance, require fewer total features, and require fewer simultaneously active features per datapoint, all with no cost to interpretability. We explore geometric and qualitative differences between e2e SAE features and standard SAE features. E2e dictionary learning brings us closer to methods that can explain network behavior concisely and accurately. We release our library for training e2e SAEs and reproducing our analysis athttps: //github. com/ApolloResearch/e2e_sae.