← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.11724 · v1
Explaining and interrupting collective misalignment in language model systems
首次提交 2026-11-09 08:48
版本更新 2026-11-09 08:48
雷达观测 2026-11-10 13:18
摘要
In collectives, language model agents can exchange individually innocuous messages that together support a policy violation. Understanding and preventing collective misalignment requires answering the question of which messages sufficiently influenced and necessarily enabled the violation. Collective Dependence Analysis (CDA) operationalises necessity and sufficiency to explain decisions and find the fewest removals interrupting support within tested combinations. Tests covered constructed violations, unscripted agent conversations, and recorded interactions, with selected message removals reducing violations from 93% to 6% in controlled cases. Using O(N) model evaluations for N messages, CDA achieves the same violation reduction with half the deletions of a frontier LLM judge given the transcript and asked for all supporting messages in eligible operational cases. CDA also proposes the mechanism through which the collective misalignment emerged. Nonetheless, complete explanations remain difficult on unfamiliar tasks and some removals can inadvertently disrupt correct decisions. CDA unifies explanations of collective misalignment with experimentally tested interventions.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-09 08:48 · 最新观测版本
Explaining and interrupting collective misalignment in language model systems
In collectives, language model agents can exchange individually innocuous messages that together support a policy violation. Understanding and preventing collective misalignment requires answering the question of which messages sufficiently influenced and necessarily enabled the violation. Collective Dependence Analysis (CDA) operationalises necessity and sufficiency to explain decisions and find the fewest removals interrupting support within tested combinations. Tests covered constructed violations, unscripted agent conversations, and recorded interactions, with selected message removals reducing violations from 93% to 6% in controlled cases. Using O(N) model evaluations for N messages, CDA achieves the same violation reduction with half the deletions of a frontier LLM judge given the transcript and asked for all supporting messages in eligible operational cases. CDA also proposes the mechanism through which the collective misalignment emerged. Nonetheless, complete explanations remain difficult on unfamiliar tasks and some removals can inadvertently disrupt correct decisions. CDA unifies explanations of collective misalignment with experimentally tested interventions.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗