Lorenzo Pacchiardi

Do large language models (LLMs) anticipate when they will answer correctly? To study this, we extract activations after a question is read but before any tokens are generated, and train linear probes to predict whether the model’s forthcoming answer will be correct. Across three open-source model families ranging from 7 to 70 billion parameters, projections on this "in-advance correctness direction" trained on generic trivia questions predict success in distribution and on diverse out-of-distribution knowledge datasets, outperforming black-box baselines and verbalised predicted confidence. Predictive power saturates in intermediate layers, suggesting that self-assessment emerges mid-computation. Notably, generalisation falters on questions requiring mathematical reasoning. Moreover, for models responding "I don’t know", doing so strongly correlates with the probe score, indicating that the same direction also captures confidence. By complementing previous results on truthfulness and other behaviours obtained with probes and sparse auto-encoders, our work contributes essential findings to elucidate LLM internals.

Data science aims to extract insights from data to support decision-making processes. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as assistants for data science, by suggesting ideas, techniques and small code snippets, or for the interpretation of results and reporting. Proper automation of some data-science activities is now promised by the rise of LLM agents, i.e., AI systems powered by an LLM equipped with additional affordances—such as code execution and knowledge bases—that can perform self-directed actions and interact with digital environments. In this paper, we survey the evaluation of LLM assistants and agents for data science. We find (1) a dominant focus on a small subset of goal-oriented activities, largely ignoring data management and exploratory activities; (2) a concentration on pure assistance or fully autonomous agents, without considering intermediate levels of human-AI collaboration; and (3) an emphasis on human substitution, therefore neglecting the possibility of higher levels of automation thanks to task transformation.

Ensuring safe and effective use of AI requires understanding and anticipating its performance on novel tasks, from advanced scientific challenges to transformed workplace activities. So far, benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems, given the low transferability across diverse tasks. In this paper, we introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure, extract ability profiles of AI systems, and predict their performance for new task instances, in- and out-of-distribution. Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate. Illustrated for 15 large language models and 63 tasks, high explanatory power is unleashed from inspecting the demand and ability profiles, bringing insights on the sensitivity and specificity exhibited by different benchmarks, and how knowledge, metacognition and reasoning are affected by model size, chain-of-thought and distillation. Surprisingly, high predictive power at the instance level becomes possible using these demand levels, providing superior estimates over black-box baseline predictors based on embeddings or finetuning, especially in out-of-distribution settings (new tasks and new benchmarks). The scales, rubrics, battery, techniques and results presented here represent a major step for AI evaluation, underpinning the reliable deployment of AI in the years ahead.

Despite possessing impressive skills, Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail unpredictably, demonstrating inconsistent success in even basic common sense reasoning tasks. This unpredictability poses a significant challenge to ensuring their safe deployment, as identifying and operating within a reliable "safe zone" is essential for mitigating risks. To address this, we present PredictaBoard, a novel collaborative benchmarking framework designed to evaluate the ability of score predictors (referred to as assessors) to anticipate LLM errors on specific task instances (i.e., prompts) from existing datasets. PredictaBoard evaluates pairs of LLMs and assessors by considering the rejection rate at different tolerance errors. As such, PredictaBoard stimulates research into developing better assessors and making LLMs more predictable, not only with a higher average performance. We conduct illustrative experiments using baseline assessors and state-of-the-art LLMs. PredictaBoard highlights the critical need to evaluate predictability alongside performance, paving the way for safer AI systems where errors are not only minimised but also anticipated and effectively mitigated.

Research in AI evaluation has grown increasingly complex and multidisciplinary, attracting researchers with diverse backgrounds and objectives. As a result, divergent evaluation paradigms have emerged, often developing in isolation, adopting conflicting terminologies, and overlooking each other’s contributions. This fragmentation has led to insular research trajectories and communication barriers both among different paradigms and with the general public, contributing to unmet expectations for deployed AI systems. To help bridge this insularity, in this paper we survey recent work in the AI evaluation landscape and identify six main paradigms. We characterise major recent contributions within each paradigm across key dimensions related to their goals, methodologies and research cultures. By clarifying the unique combination of questions and approaches associated with each paradigm, we aim to increase awareness of the breadth of current evaluation approaches and foster cross-pollination between different paradigms. We also identify potential gaps in the field to inspire future research directions.

Large language models (LLMs) can "lie", which we define as outputting false statements despite "knowing" the truth in a demonstrable sense. LLMs might "lie", for example, when instructed to output misinformation. Here, we develop a simple lie detector that requires neither access to the LLM’s activations (black-box) nor ground-truth knowledge of the fact in question. The detector works by asking a predefined set of unrelated follow-up questions after a suspected lie, and feeding the LLM’s yes/no answers into a logistic regression classifier. Despite its simplicity, this lie detector is highly accurate and surprisingly general. When trained on examples from a single setting – prompting GPT-3.5 to lie about factual questions – the detector generalises out-of-distribution to (1) other LLM architectures, (2) LLMs fine-tuned to lie, (3) sycophantic lies, and (4) lies emerging in real-life scenarios such as sales. These results indicate that LLMs have distinctive lie-related behavioural patterns, consistent across architectures and contexts, which could enable general-purpose lie detection.