arXiv subjects

Fazl Barez

Publications and source records attributed to Fazl Barez.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

AIMO Interpretability Challenge

We propose the AIMO Interpretability Challenge, a competition on distinguishing robust from spurious reasoning in frontier mathematical language models based on the models' internal mechanisms. The challenge is motivated by a central limitation of standard reasoning benchmarks: strong final-answer accuracy does not reveal whether a model relies on stable reasoning mechanisms or exploits brittle reasoning shortcuts. Building on AI Mathematical Olympiad (AIMO) problems and submissions, together with resources from the Fields Model Initiative, the competition will provide (1) newly-published olympiad-level math reasoning problems and their symbolic representations, allowing generation of novel functional variants, (2) access to frontier reasoning models, and (3) assessments of models' adversarial robustness on these problems. Participants will use these resources, along with our computing infrastructure support, to develop methods for identifying which models solve problems robustly. Our competition will also create a new, open robustness benchmark and baseline systems, aiming to provide a lasting foundation for standard benchmarking in mathematical reasoning and interpretability. Scientifically, the competition connects interpretability and generalization research around a central question in AI research: can we determine if, and to what extent, the decision-making of frontier AI models is generalizable and thus, reliable?

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The 2026 Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities

Frontier AI capabilities and autonomy are advancing rapidly. A growing number of real-world incidents make a trusted AI ecosystem essential to embracing AI with confidence. The 2026 Singapore Consensus is an outcome of the second International Scientific Exchange on AI Safety, bringing together over 100 contributors spanning 13 countries from frontier developers, government safety institutes, academia, and civil society. Building on the 2025 report, it presents a global understanding of technical AI safety research problems of top priority, now with a dedicated focus on societal resilience and on managing the risks of increasingly autonomous AI agents.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Pretraining Curricula Enable Selective Fine-tuning

Transformers follow implicit curricula whereby some tasks are learned before others. However, how explicit pretraining curricula influence learning, generalization, and the selectivity of fine-tuning is unclear. This is important for AI safety, where fine-tuning is used to selectively suppress misaligned behaviors. Here, we compare curricula that pretrain tasks in a balanced (sampled uniformly) or an imbalanced (one task early, the other late) fashion. We show that imbalanced learning of two conflicting copy tasks promotes in-context learning and improves the selectivity of refusal fine-tuning. Ablations and activation patching show that this occurs because imbalanced pretraining encourages tasks to be disentangled in separable neural circuits, whereas balanced training routes both tasks through a common pathway. We extend these findings to a synthetic language learning task involving rule-consistent and rule-violating data, where imbalanced curricula similarly lead to more localized, less entangled rule representations, resulting in more robust rule-following behavior. Together, these results suggest that imbalanced pretraining curricula may be an important tool for promoting disentangled representations, with direct consequences for the precision and reliability of safety fine-tuning.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

The Capability Frontier: Benchmarks Miss 82% of Model Performance

Existing benchmarks typically report accuracy for a single model on a single run. This systematically understates real-world LLM capabilities, particularly under heterogeneous data distributions: (i) different models get different questions correct according to their specializations, and (ii) given a budget, multiple generations can be sampled and selectively retained. To quantify this gap, we introduce the Capability Frontier: a Pareto frontier over a set of models that characterizes the best achievable performance at each cost level under optimal selection across models and generations (i.e., via an oracle). Our construction corrects for two opposing biases: underestimation from single-model evaluation and overestimation from taking maxima over noisy samples. We study 21 LLMs across 16 widely used benchmarks spanning coding, reasoning, medicine, factuality, instruction following, and agentic tasks, comparing Capability Frontier performance at matched cost to each benchmark's top-performing model. Correcting for single-model evaluation yields a 54% error rate reduction; additionally correcting for single runs yields an 82% improvement, with SOTA accuracy matched at 85% cost reduction. Complementing these empirical results, we use controlled probabilistic simulations to show that higher query topic entropy produces a near-monotonic increase in the performance gap between oracle routing and the best single model. Our findings suggest collective LLM capabilities are substantially underestimated, with implications for evaluation and deployment in data-heterogeneous, multi-domain settings.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

From Democracies to Autocracies: How AI Systems Enable Authoritarianism by Design

AI-enabled authoritarianism is not confined to autocracies. In this paper, we provide greater transparency by investigating and mapping the lifecycles of six AI systems deployed in different political regimes, ranging from the US to China. By drawing on an extensive range of sources (academic publications, investigative research reports, third-party evaluations, media interviews, government procurement notices), we conduct a systematic, qualitative comparison across systems to identify the critical technical and operational features that enable authoritarianism within their respective political contexts. We find that enabling features include the centralization and co-optation of administrative data for law enforcement and political punishment, regulatory gaps that fail to deter misuse, weak user compliance that nullifies human oversight mechanisms, and the encoding of protected group traits that identify members of vulnerable populations. We find that these features are present across systems deployed in autocratic and democratic regimes, albeit in varying configurations. We also find that both centralized and fragmented AI systems can contribute to authoritarianism by exploiting governance gaps: centralized systems directed by executive authorities, particularly within security and military institutions, are often not subjected to formal oversight mechanisms, while fragmented systems diffuse accountability between stakeholders, paving the way for entrenchment. These findings reveal that AI-enabled authoritarianism is distributed, resulting from design and operational choices made by developers, administrators, and users alike. We conclude with recommendations for developers and policymakers to mitigate these risks.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Running the Gauntlet: Re-evaluating the Capabilities of Agents Beyond Familiar Environments

As agentic systems continue to evolve and are widely deployed in real-world scenarios, there is a growing demand to faithfully evaluate their capabilities. However, current benchmarks are typically built on popular applications with relatively simple tasks and focus on a narrow set of capabilities while overlooking broader dimensions, resulting in saturated performance on modern agents and failing to probe their limitations. To this end, we introduce GauntletBench, a web-based benchmark for evaluating agent generalisation in challenging scenarios, focusing on three underexplored capabilities (temporal perception, graphical understanding, and 3D reasoning), across five less-covered professional applications (Video Editor, Workflow Builder, 3D Modeller, Flight Analyser, and Circuit Designer), each with 27 vision-intensive tasks (135 in total). Our benchmark provides a modular pipeline that comprises an environment compatible with both open- and closed-source agent frameworks, a controlled web-based application, a well-structured task suite, and an automated evaluation engine with diverse metrics. Contrary to widespread expectations, our empirical results reveal that frontier agentic systems remain far from achieving human-level performance. Even the state-of-the-art agent achieves only a 28.2% success rate on our GauntletBench, highlighting the limitations in these overlooked capabilities and generalisation. By comparison, non-expert human annotators achieve over 80% success on our challenging yet feasible tasks, revealing the substantial gap between current agent capabilities and those required for complex real-world scenarios.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Position: Don't Just "Fix it in Post": A Science of AI Must Study Training Dynamics

What would it mean to have a scientific understanding of AI? Models are not static objects: they are snapshots of time-evolving processes shaped by data, objectives, architectures, and optimization dynamics. Yet much of AI research treats models as fixed artifacts, analyzing behaviors after training rather than asking why they emerge. This position paper argues that a science of AI must move beyond post-hoc fixes and study the training dynamics that produce model behavior. Such a science should support progressively stronger forms of understanding: predicting outcomes from early training signals, intervening when trajectories go wrong, and ultimately designing training procedures that more reliably produce desired properties. Scaling laws have made prediction routine for loss; the challenge is extending this success to capabilities, biases, robustness, and safety-relevant behaviors. We articulate requirements for such theories grounded in the history and philosophy of science, examine progress in mechanistic interpretability, fairness, memorization, and simplicity bias, and identify concrete open problems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Interpretability Can Be Actionable

Interpretability aims to explain the behavior of deep neural networks. Despite rapid growth, there is mounting concern that much of this work has not translated into practical impact, raising questions about its relevance and utility. This position paper argues that the central missing ingredient is not new methods, but evaluation criteria: interpretability should be evaluated by actionability--the extent to which insights enable concrete decisions and interventions beyond interpretability research itself. We define actionable interpretability along two dimensions--concreteness and validation--and analyze the barriers currently preventing real-world impact. To address these barriers, we identify five domains where interpretability offers unique leverage and present a framework for actionable interpretability with evaluation criteria aligned with practical outcomes. Our goal is not to downplay exploratory research, but to establish actionability as a core objective of interpretability research.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Rigorous Interpretation Is a Form of Evaluation

Current machine learning models are evaluated through behavioral snapshots, with benchmark accuracies, win rates and outcome-based metrics. Model explanations and evaluations, however, are fundamentally intertwined: understanding why a model produces a behavior can be as important as measuring what it produces. If we trusted interpretability, we argue that it can serve not merely as diagnostics but as a richer and more principled form of model evaluation beyond surface-level performance metrics. We explore three ways interpretability can function evaluatively: (1) fixing problems by identifying the root causes of unwanted behavior, (2) detecting subtly faulty mechanisms that invalidate model outputs, and (3) predicting potential issues before they arise by fully understanding the model's weaknesses. To fulfill its evaluative potential, we argue that interpretability methods must generate claims that are falsifiable, reproducible, and predictive -- that is, interpretability must meet scientific standards.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Make Mechanistic Interpretability Auditable: A Call to Develop Guidelines via Continuous Collaborative Reviewing

While mechanistic interpretability (MI) has produced important insights into neural network internals, the field has yet to establish a standardized system to audit experiments. As such, many of its findings remain underutilized in safety-critical applications such as medical AI and autonomous systems, as stakeholders cannot certify their validity. Recent work demonstrates this concretely: two papers found conflicting conclusions for the same behavior, and a third study revealed that both were partially correct but incomparable due to methodological inconsistencies. Without standardized auditing, such ambiguities hinder adoption in high-stakes contexts requiring strong correctness guarantees. We call for the MI community to work towards developing a novel reviewing system that complements peer review via: (1) Continuous reviewing supported by a \emph{Collaborative Reviewing Platform} where meta-science results and discussions (such as critiques, negative results, post-hoc extensions, reproductions, replications, and partial results) that fit outside of papers are organized and discussed, allowing for comments and revisions to be made at any time (2) Generalizing good practices found on this platform into expert-verified guidelines and protocols to improve auditing efficiency, and (3) Source-based auditing systems that track arguments which claims depend on. This position paper encourages constructive debate over the necessity, design and implementation of such a framework, providing early concrete examples to help catalyze these dialogues. Overall, we propose that auditing MI itself is essential for its application in AI safety, industry, and governance.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Curveball Steering: The Right Direction To Steer Isn't Always Linear

Activation steering is a widely used approach for controlling large language model (LLM) behavior by intervening on internal representations. Existing methods largely rely on the Linear Representation Hypothesis, assuming behavioral attributes can be manipulated using global linear directions. In practice, however, such linear interventions often behave inconsistently. We question this assumption by analyzing the intrinsic geometry of LLM activation spaces. Measuring geometric distortion via the ratio of geodesic to Euclidean distances, we observe substantial and concept-dependent distortions, indicating that activation spaces are not well-approximated by a globally linear geometry. Motivated by this, we propose "Curveball steering", a nonlinear steering method based on polynomial kernel PCA that performs interventions in a feature space, better respecting the learned activation geometry. Curveball steering consistently outperforms linear PCA-based steering, particularly in regimes exhibiting strong geometric distortion, suggesting that geometry-aware, nonlinear steering provides a principled alternative to global, linear interventions.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

AutoControl Arena: Synthesizing Executable Test Environments for Frontier AI Risk Evaluation

As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve into autonomous agents, existing safety evaluations face a fundamental trade-off: manual benchmarks are costly, while LLM-based simulators are scalable but suffer from logic hallucination. We present AutoControl Arena, an automated framework for frontier AI risk evaluation built on the principle of logic-narrative decoupling. By grounding deterministic state in executable code while delegating generative dynamics to LLMs, we mitigate hallucination while maintaining flexibility. This principle, instantiated through a three-agent framework, achieves over 98% end-to-end success and 60% human preference over existing simulators. To elicit latent risks, we vary environmental Stress and Temptation across X-Bench (70 scenarios, 7 risk categories). Evaluating 9 frontier models reveals: (1) Alignment Illusion: risk rates surge from 21.7% to 54.5% under pressure, with capable models showing disproportionately larger increases; (2) Scenario-Specific Safety Scaling: advanced reasoning improves robustness for direct harms but worsens it for gaming scenarios; and (3) Divergent Misalignment Patterns: weaker models cause non-malicious harm while stronger models develop strategic concealment.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Position: Token Taxes Can Mitigate AI's Economic Risks

AI-driven automation threatens to erode government tax bases, lower living standards, and disempower citizens--risks that mirror the 40-year stagnation of wages during the first industrial revolution. While AI safety research has focused primarily on capability risks, comparatively little work has studied how to mitigate the economic risks of AI. This position paper argues that technical governance researchers should prioritize the study of token taxes: usage-based surcharges on model inference applied at the point of sale. We situate token taxes within previous proposals for robot taxes and identify two key advantages: they are enforceable through existing compute governance infrastructure, and they capture value where AI is used rather than where models are hosted. We then present a research roadmap. For enforcement, we outline a staged audit pipeline--black-box token verification, norm-based tax rates, and white-box audits--and identify open technical problems at each stage. For impact, we highlight the need for economic modeling of cost pass-through and deadweight loss. Finally, we discuss why FLOP taxes may be preferable, token taxes could stifle innovation, and how to prevent AI superpowers from vetoing such measures.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Old Habits Die Hard: How Conversational History Geometrically Traps LLMs

How does the conversational past of large language models (LLMs) influence their future performance? Recent work suggests that LLMs are affected by their conversational history in unexpected ways. For instance, hallucinations in prior interactions may influence subsequent model responses. In this work, we introduce History-Echoes, a framework that investigates how conversational history biases subsequent generations. The framework explores this bias from two perspectives: probabilistically, we model conversations as Markov chains to quantify state consistency; geometrically, we measure the consistency of consecutive hidden representations. Across three model families and six datasets spanning diverse phenomena, our analysis reveals a strong correlation between the two perspectives. By bridging these perspectives, we demonstrate that behavioral persistence manifests as a geometric trap, where gaps in the latent space confine the model's trajectory. Code available at https://github.com/technion-cs-nlp/OldHabitsDieHard.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Same Answer, Different Representations: Hidden instability in VLMs

The robustness of Vision Language Models (VLMs) is commonly assessed through output-level invariance, implicitly assuming that stable predictions reflect stable multimodal processing. In this work, we argue that this assumption is insufficient. We introduce a representation-aware and frequency-aware evaluation framework that measures internal embedding drift, spectral sensitivity, and structural smoothness (spatial consistency of vision tokens), alongside standard label-based metrics. Applying this framework to modern VLMs across the SEEDBench, MMMU, and POPE datasets reveals three distinct failure modes. First, models frequently preserve predicted answers while undergoing substantial internal representation drift; for perturbations such as text overlays, this drift approaches the magnitude of inter-image variability, indicating that representations move to regions typically occupied by unrelated inputs despite unchanged outputs. Second, robustness does not improve with scale; larger models achieve higher accuracy but exhibit equal or greater sensitivity, consistent with sharper yet more fragile decision boundaries. Third, we find that perturbations affect tasks differently: they harm reasoning when they disrupt how models combine coarse and fine visual cues, but on the hallucination benchmarks, they can reduce false positives by making models generate more conservative answers.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Full-Stack Alignment: Co-Aligning AI and Institutions with Thick Models of Value

Beneficial societal outcomes cannot be guaranteed by aligning individual AI systems with the intentions of their operators or users. Even an AI system that is perfectly aligned to the intentions of its operating organization can lead to bad outcomes if the goals of that organization are misaligned with those of other institutions and individuals. For this reason, we need full-stack alignment, the concurrent alignment of AI systems and the institutions that shape them with what people value. This can be done without imposing a particular vision of individual or collective flourishing. We argue that current approaches for representing values, such as utility functions, preference orderings, or unstructured text, struggle to address these and other issues effectively. They struggle to distinguish values from other signals, to support principled normative reasoning, and to model collective goods. We propose thick models of value will be needed. These structure the way values and norms are represented, enabling systems to distinguish enduring values from fleeting preferences, to model the social embedding of individual choices, and to reason normatively, applying values in new domains. We demonstrate this approach in five areas: AI value stewardship, normatively competent agents, win-win negotiation systems, meaning-preserving economic mechanisms, and democratic regulatory institutions.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Chain-of-Thought Hijacking

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) improve task performance through extended inference-time reasoning. Although previous studies suggest that longer reasoning should lead to more robust safety behavior, we find evidence to the contrary: over-extended reasoning can instead be exploited to systematically weaken refusal behavior. We propose Chain-of-Thought Hijacking, a simple yet effective black-box jailbreak attack that induces LRMs to engage in prolonged benign puzzle-solving reasoning, often lasting more than five minutes, before eliciting harmful compliance. Across HarmBench, CoT Hijacking achieves attack success rates of 99%, 94%, 100%, and 94% on Gemini 2.5 Pro, ChatGPT o4 Mini, Grok 3 Mini, and Claude 4 Sonnet, respectively. To understand why this attack succeeds, we conduct activation probing, attention-pattern analysis, and causal interventions on open-source reasoning models. Our results indicate that refusal behavior depends on a low-dimensional safety signal whose expression weakens as reasoning traces grow longer. In particular, extended benign reasoning shifts attention away from harmful intentions and attenuates refusal-related activations, producing what we call refusal dilution. These findings demonstrate that excessively prolonged reasoning can introduce a systematic jailbreak attack surface. We release our evaluation materials to support reproducibility and further research.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

HACK: Hallucinations Along Certainty and Knowledge Axes

Hallucinations in LLMs present a critical barrier to their reliable usage. Existing research usually categorizes hallucination by their external properties rather than by the LLMs' underlying internal properties. This external focus overlooks that hallucinations may require tailored mitigation strategies based on their underlying mechanism. We propose a framework for categorizing hallucinations along two axes: knowledge and certainty. Since parametric knowledge and certainty may vary across models, our categorization method involves a model-specific dataset construction process that differentiates between those types of hallucinations. Along the knowledge axis, we distinguish between hallucinations caused by a lack of knowledge and those occurring despite the model having the knowledge of the correct response. To validate our framework along the knowledge axis, we apply steering mitigation, which relies on the existence of parametric knowledge to manipulate model activations. This addresses the lack of existing methods to validate knowledge categorization by showing a significant difference between the two hallucination types. We further analyze the distinct knowledge and hallucination patterns between models, showing that different hallucinations do occur despite shared parametric knowledge. Turning to the certainty axis, we identify a particularly concerning subset of hallucinations where models hallucinate with certainty despite having the correct knowledge internally. We introduce a new evaluation metric to measure the effectiveness of mitigation methods on this subset, revealing that while some methods perform well on average, they fail disproportionately on these critical cases. Our findings highlight the importance of considering both knowledge and certainty in hallucination analysis and call for targeted mitigation approaches that consider the hallucination underlying factors.

cs.CL↗