arXiv subjects

Callum Canavan

Publications and source records attributed to Callum Canavan.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Self-Generated Text Recognition: Quality Heuristics, Cross-Task Transfer, and Downstream Bias in LLM Evaluation

Self-Generated Text Recognition (SGTR)--the ability of an LLM to identify its own outputs--poses risks to AI safeguards that rely on LLMs as evaluators or monitors: an LLM may recognize outputs from other copies of the same model and make biased judgments or collude outright. Prior work has drawn conflicting conclusions about whether current models possess significant SGTR capabilities. We explain these disagreements by identifying key experimental design choices--which we term operationalizations--that drive divergent results. Evaluating 13-21 models across six presentation operationalizations and four task-domain operationalizations, we find that accuracy varies substantially with evaluation format (pairwise vs individual assessments of text), conversation format (presenting candidate text in user tags vs assistant tags), and the domain of the task used to generate candidate text (e.g., coding vs summarization). We corroborate previous observations that a quality heuristic--models attributing authorship to text they perceive as higher quality--is a dominant confound. We also find that improving a model's SGTR performance via supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on one operationalization can generalize to others, and can increase the model's preference for its own outputs when it acts as a judge in the AlpacaEval framework. Our results suggest that, despite confounds, some models possess practical SGTR capabilities, and that SGTR should be monitored and considered in the design of safety-critical AI applications.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Three Concrete Challenges and Two Hopes for the Safety of Unsupervised Elicitation

To steer language models towards truthful outputs on tasks which are beyond human capability, previous work has suggested training models on easy tasks to steer them on harder ones (easy-to-hard generalization), or using unsupervised training algorithms to steer models with no external labels at all (unsupervised elicitation). Although techniques from both paradigms have been shown to improve model accuracy on a wide variety of tasks, we argue that the datasets used for these evaluations could cause overoptimistic evaluation results. Unlike many real-world datasets, they often (1) have no features with more salience than truthfulness, (2) have balanced training sets, and (3) contain only data points to which the model can give a well-defined answer. We construct datasets that lack each of these properties to stress-test a range of standard unsupervised elicitation and easy-to-hard generalization techniques. We find that no technique reliably performs well on any of these challenges. We also study ensembling and combining easy-to-hard and unsupervised techniques, and find they only partially mitigate performance degradation due to these challenges. We believe that overcoming these challenges should be a priority for future work on unsupervised elicitation.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Confirmation bias: A challenge for scalable oversight

Scalable oversight protocols aim to empower evaluators to accurately verify AI models more capable than themselves. However, human evaluators are subject to biases that can lead to systematic errors. We conduct two studies examining the performance of simple oversight protocols where evaluators know that the model is "correct most of the time, but not all of the time". We find no overall advantage for the tested protocols, although in Study 1, showing arguments in favor of both answers improves accuracy in cases where the model is incorrect. In Study 2, participants in both groups become more confident in the system's answers after conducting online research, even when those answers are incorrect. We also reanalyze data from prior work that was more optimistic about simple protocols, finding that human evaluators possessing knowledge absent from models likely contributed to their positive results--an advantage that diminishes as models continue to scale in capability. These findings underscore the importance of testing the degree to which oversight protocols are robust to evaluator biases, whether they outperform simple deference to the model under evaluation, and whether their performance scales with increasing problem difficulty and model capability.

cs.HC↗