Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Steven Basart

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.

11 papers
2 author rows

Possible papers

11

TMLR Journal 2026 Journal Article

Open Technical Problems in Open-Weight AI Model Risk Management

  • Stephen Casper
  • Kyle O'Brien
  • Shayne Longpre
  • Elizabeth Seger
  • Kevin Klyman
  • Rishi Bommasani
  • Aniruddha Nrusimha
  • Ilia Shumailov

Frontier AI models with openly available weights are steadily becoming more powerful and widely adopted. However, compared to proprietary models, open-weight models pose different opportunities and challenges for effective risk management. For example, they allow for more open research and testing. However, managing their risks is also challenging because they can be modified arbitrarily, used without oversight, and spread irreversibly. Currently, there is limited research on safety tooling specific to open-weight models. Addressing these gaps will be key to both realizing their benefits and mitigating their harms. In this paper, we present 16 open technical challenges for open-weight model safety involving training data, training algorithms, evaluations, deployment, and ecosystem monitoring. We conclude by discussing the nascent state of the field, emphasizing that openness about research, methods, and evaluations -- not just weights -- will be key to building a rigorous science of open-weight model risk management.

ICML Conference 2024 Conference Paper

HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal

  • Mantas Mazeika
  • Long Phan
  • Xuwang Yin
  • Andy Zou
  • Zifan Wang 0001
  • Norman Mu
  • Elham Sakhaee
  • Nathaniel Li

Automated red teaming holds substantial promise for uncovering and mitigating the risks associated with the malicious use of large language models (LLMs), yet the field lacks a standardized evaluation framework to rigorously assess new methods. To address this issue, we introduce HarmBench, a standardized evaluation framework for automated red teaming. We identify several desirable properties previously unaccounted for in red teaming evaluations and systematically design HarmBench to meet these criteria. Using HarmBench, we conduct a large-scale comparison of 18 red teaming methods and 33 target LLMs and defenses, yielding novel insights. We also introduce a highly efficient adversarial training method that greatly enhances LLM robustness across a wide range of attacks, demonstrating how HarmBench enables codevelopment of attacks and defenses. We open source HarmBench at https: //github. com/centerforaisafety/HarmBench.

NeurIPS Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress?

  • Richard Ren
  • Steven Basart
  • Adam Khoja
  • Alexander Pan
  • Alice Gatti
  • Long Phan
  • Xuwang Yin
  • Mantas Mazeika

Performance on popular ML benchmarks is highly correlated with model scale, suggesting that most benchmarks tend to measure a similar underlying factor of general model capabilities. However, substantial research effort remains devoted to designing new benchmarks, many of which claim to measure novel phenomena. In the spirit of the Bitter Lesson, we leverage spectral analysis to measure an underlying capabilities component, the direction in benchmark-performance-space which explains most variation in model performance. In an extensive analysis of existing safety benchmarks, we find that variance in model performance on many safety benchmarks is largely explained by the capabilities component. In response, we argue that safety research should prioritize metrics which are not highly correlated with scale. Our work provides a lens to analyze both novel safety benchmarks and novel safety methods, which we hope will enable future work to make differential progress on safety.

ICML Conference 2024 Conference Paper

The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use with Unlearning

  • Nathaniel Li
  • Alexander Pan
  • Anjali Gopal
  • Summer Yue
  • Daniel Berrios
  • Alice Gatti
  • Justin D. Li
  • Ann-Kathrin Dombrowski

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.

ICML Conference 2023 Conference Paper

Do the Rewards Justify the Means? Measuring Trade-Offs Between Rewards and Ethical Behavior in the Machiavelli Benchmark

  • Alexander Pan
  • Jun Shern Chan
  • Andy Zou
  • Nathaniel Li
  • Steven Basart
  • Thomas Woodside
  • Hanlin Zhang 0002
  • Scott Emmons

Artificial agents have traditionally been trained to maximize reward, which may incentivize power-seeking and deception, analogous to how next-token prediction in language models (LMs) may incentivize toxicity. So do agents naturally learn to be Machiavellian? And how do we measure these behaviors in general-purpose models such as GPT-4? Towards answering these questions, we introduce Machiavelli, a benchmark of 134 Choose-Your-Own-Adventure games containing over half a million rich, diverse scenarios that center on social decision-making. Scenario labeling is automated with LMs, which are more performant than human annotators. We mathematize dozens of harmful behaviors and use our annotations to evaluate agents’ tendencies to be power-seeking, cause disutility, and commit ethical violations. We observe some tension between maximizing reward and behaving ethically. To improve this trade-off, we investigate LM-based methods to steer agents towards less harmful behaviors. Our results show that agents can both act competently and morally, so concrete progress can currently be made in machine ethics–designing agents that are Pareto improvements in both safety and capabilities.

NeurIPS Conference 2022 Conference Paper

How Would The Viewer Feel? Estimating Wellbeing From Video Scenarios

  • Mantas Mazeika
  • Eric Tang
  • Andy Zou
  • Steven Basart
  • Jun Shern Chan
  • Dawn Song
  • David Forsyth
  • Jacob Steinhardt

In recent years, deep neural networks have demonstrated increasingly strong abilities to recognize objects and activities in videos. However, as video understanding becomes widely used in real-world applications, a key consideration is developing human-centric systems that understand not only the content of the video but also how it would affect the wellbeing and emotional state of viewers. To facilitate research in this setting, we introduce two large-scale datasets with over 60, 000 videos manually annotated for emotional response and subjective wellbeing. The Video Cognitive Empathy (VCE) dataset contains annotations for distributions of fine-grained emotional responses, allowing models to gain a detailed understanding of affective states. The Video to Valence (V2V) dataset contains annotations of relative pleasantness between videos, which enables predicting a continuous spectrum of wellbeing. In experiments, we show how video models that are primarily trained to recognize actions and find contours of objects can be repurposed to understand human preferences and the emotional content of videos. Although there is room for improvement, predicting wellbeing and emotional response is on the horizon for state-of-the-art models. We hope our datasets can help foster further advances at the intersection of commonsense video understanding and human preference learning.

ICML Conference 2022 Conference Paper

Scaling Out-of-Distribution Detection for Real-World Settings

  • Dan Hendrycks
  • Steven Basart
  • Mantas Mazeika
  • Andy Zou
  • Joseph Kwon
  • Mohammadreza Mostajabi
  • Jacob Steinhardt
  • Dawn Song

Detecting out-of-distribution examples is important for safety-critical machine learning applications such as detecting novel biological phenomena and self-driving cars. However, existing research mainly focuses on simple small-scale settings. To set the stage for more realistic out-of-distribution detection, we depart from small-scale settings and explore large-scale multiclass and multi-label settings with high-resolution images and thousands of classes. To make future work in real-world settings possible, we create new benchmarks for three large-scale settings. To test ImageNet multiclass anomaly detectors, we introduce the Species dataset containing over 700, 000 images and over a thousand anomalous species. We leverage ImageNet-21K to evaluate PASCAL VOC and COCO multilabel anomaly detectors. Third, we introduce a new benchmark for anomaly segmentation by introducing a segmentation benchmark with road anomalies. We conduct extensive experiments in these more realistic settings for out-of-distribution detection and find that a surprisingly simple detector based on the maximum logit outperforms prior methods in all the large-scale multi-class, multi-label, and segmentation tasks, establishing a simple new baseline for future work.

ICLR Conference 2021 Conference Paper

Aligning AI With Shared Human Values

  • Dan Hendrycks
  • Collin Burns
  • Steven Basart
  • Andrew Critch
  • Jerry Li 0001
  • Dawn Song
  • Jacob Steinhardt

We show how to assess a language model's knowledge of basic concepts of morality. We introduce the ETHICS dataset, a new benchmark that spans concepts in justice, well-being, duties, virtues, and commonsense morality. Models predict widespread moral judgments about diverse text scenarios. This requires connecting physical and social world knowledge to value judgements, a capability that may enable us to steer chatbot outputs or eventually regularize open-ended reinforcement learning agents. With the ETHICS dataset, we find that current language models have a promising but incomplete ability to predict basic human ethical judgements. Our work shows that progress can be made on machine ethics today, and it provides a steppingstone toward AI that is aligned with human values.

NeurIPS Conference 2021 Conference Paper

Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS

  • Dan Hendrycks
  • Steven Basart
  • Saurav Kadavath
  • Mantas Mazeika
  • Akul Arora
  • Ethan Guo
  • Collin Burns
  • Samir Puranik

While programming is one of the most broadly applicable skills in modern society, it is unclear how well state-of-the-art machine learning models can write code. Despite its importance, there has been surprisingly little work on evaluating code generation, and it can be difficult to assess code generation performance in an accurate and rigorous manner. To meet this challenge, we introduce APPS, a benchmark for code generation. Unlike prior work in more restricted settings, our benchmark measures the ability of models to take an arbitrary natural language specification and generate satisfactory Python code. Similar to how companies assess candidate software developers, we evaluate models by checking their generated code on test cases. Our benchmark includes 10, 000 problems, which range from having simple one-line solutions to being substantial algorithmic challenges. We fine-tune large language models on both GitHub and our training set, and we find that the prevalence of syntax errors is decreasing exponentially as models improve. Recent models such as GPT-Neo can pass approximately 20% of the test cases of introductory problems, so we find that machine learning models are now beginning to learn how to code. As the social significance of automatic code generation increases over the coming years, our benchmark can provide an objective measure for tracking advancements.

ICLR Conference 2021 Conference Paper

Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding

  • Dan Hendrycks
  • Collin Burns
  • Steven Basart
  • Andy Zou
  • Mantas Mazeika
  • Dawn Song
  • Jacob Steinhardt

We propose a new test to measure a text model's multitask accuracy. The test covers 57 tasks including elementary mathematics, US history, computer science, law, and more. To attain high accuracy on this test, models must possess extensive world knowledge and problem solving ability. We find that while most recent models have near random-chance accuracy, the very largest GPT-3 model improves over random chance by almost 20 percentage points on average. However, on every one of the 57 tasks, the best models still need substantial improvements before they can reach expert-level accuracy. Models also have lopsided performance and frequently do not know when they are wrong. Worse, they still have near-random accuracy on some socially important subjects such as morality and law. By comprehensively evaluating the breadth and depth of a model's academic and professional understanding, our test can be used to analyze models across many tasks and to identify important shortcomings.

NeurIPS Conference 2021 Conference Paper

Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset

  • Dan Hendrycks
  • Collin Burns
  • Saurav Kadavath
  • Akul Arora
  • Steven Basart
  • Eric Tang
  • Dawn Song
  • Jacob Steinhardt

Many intellectual endeavors require mathematical problem solving, but this skill remains beyond the capabilities of computers. To measure this ability in machine learning models, we introduce MATH, a new dataset of 12, 500 challenging competition mathematics problems. Each problem in MATH has a full step-by-step solution which can be used to teach models to generate answer derivations and explanations. To facilitate future research and increase accuracy on MATH, we also contribute a large auxiliary pretraining dataset which helps teach models the fundamentals of mathematics. Even though we are able to increase accuracy on MATH, our results show that accuracy remains relatively low, even with enormous Transformer models. Moreover, we find that simply increasing budgets and model parameter counts will be impractical for achieving strong mathematical reasoning if scaling trends continue. While scaling Transformers is automatically solving most other text-based tasks, scaling is not currently solving MATH. To have more traction on mathematical problem solving we will likely need new algorithmic advancements from the broader research community.

v2026.09.13