Bertram Højer

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have resulted in increasingly anthropomorphic language concerning the ability of LLMs to reason. Whether reasoning in LLMs should be understood to be inherently different is, however, widely debated. We propose utilizing a representation engineering approach wherein model activations are read from the residual stream of an LLM when processing a reasoning task. The activations are used to derive a control vector that is applied to the model as an inference-time intervention, modulating the representational space of the model, to improve performance on the specified task. We publish the code for deriving control vectors and analyzing model representations. The method allows us to improve performance on reasoning benchmarks and assess how control vectors influence the final logit distribution of a model via metrics such as KL divergence and entropy. We apply control vectors to Mistral-7B-Instruct and a range of Pythia models on an inductive, a deductive and mathematical reasoning task. We show that an LLM can, to a certain degree, be controlled to improve its perceived reasoning ability by modulating activations. The intervention is dependent upon the ability to reliably extract the model’s typical state when correctly solving a task. Our results suggest that reasoning performance can be modulated in the same manner as other information-processing tasks performed by LLMs and demonstrate that we are capable of improving performance on specific tasks via a simple intervention on the residual stream with no additional training.

Despite the widespread use of ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI) framing in Natural Language Processing (NLP) research, it is not clear what researchers mean by “intelligence”. To that end, we present the results of a survey on the notion of “intelligence” among researchers and its role in the research agenda. The survey elicited complete responses from 303 researchers from a variety of fields including NLP, Machine Learning (ML), Cognitive Science, Linguistics, and Neuroscience.We identify 3 criteria of intelligence that the community agrees on the most: generalization, adaptability, & reasoning.Our results suggests that the perception of the current NLP systems as “intelligent” is a minority position (29%).Furthermore, only 16.2% of the respondents see developing intelligent systems as a research goal, and these respondents are more likely to consider the current systems intelligent.