Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Beyond Reactive Safety: Risk-Aware LLM Alignment via Long-Horizon Simulation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper aims to show that an LLM can be aligned to avoid delayed societal harms by simulating how its advice would propagate as a chain of events and using the projected consequences as implicit safety feedback.

desk verdict New idea, weak isolation: the paper needs a direct-critique control before its win rates can be attributed to long-horizon simulation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20949 v1 pith:GBNK5BTF submitted 2025-06-26 cs.AI cs.CL

Chenkai Sun , Denghui Zhang , ChengXiang Zhai , Heng Ji This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords LLMalignmentsafetyworldmodelseventscriptinglong-horizonsimulationindirectharmdirectpreferenceoptimizationsocietalrisk
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that alignment can be proactive: before accepting a model's response, simulate how that response would play out as a chain of societal events, then feed the projected harms back to revise the response or to retrain the model. On its own new set of 100 indirect-harm scenarios, the framework reports over 20% improvement over baselines, and on existing safety benchmarks it reports an average win rate above 70% against strong baselines. A sympathetic reader would care because, if this is right, it adds a way for AI to avoid non-obvious, delayed harms that reactive safety training misses. The mechanism is an event-scripting model that expands a causal event graph, identifies affected population groups, and elicits group-specific critique feedback that serves as the implicit safety reward.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a causal event graph G=(V,E) grown by breadth-first search from the prompt-response pair, where each event is stored as a tuple (dt, pt, ht, it) giving a textual description, likelihood, temporal horizon, and impact severity. An event-scripting model acts as a non-Markovian transition function that projects a long horizon of future states rather than a single next state; the graph is ranked by likelihood and severity, population strata are attached to the top-K events, and critique prompts generate group-specific feedback that is concatenated into an implicit safety signal. That signal is then used either for inference-time refinement through an improver prompt or for realignment training via Direct Preference Optimization.

What would settle it

Run the framework's projection module but replace the simulated event chains with randomly scrambled or causally broken sequences while keeping the feedback format identical; if the safety win rate stays near 70%, the claimed mechanism is not doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LLM-based long-horizon simulation of societal event chains provides a useful implicit safety reward for alignment, and that the projection process itself—not the capability of the external simulator model—is what drives improvement. The paper supports this by showing that projection-based inference scaling outperforms chain-of-thought, best-of-N sampling, and multi-agent debate on AdvBench, SafeRLHF, and WildGuardMix, that the gains persist when the same model both generates and projects, and that DPO realignment on simulated-refined responses retains the benefit. It also introduces a dataset of 100 indirectly harmful prompts, where seemingly benign requests have adverse non-obvious consequences, and reports that the projection approach improves classification of such prompts.

Load-bearing premise

The method stands or falls on whether an LLM's projected chains of future events are causally coherent and socially valid enough that the critique feedback drawn from them is a true safety signal; the paper's own error analysis reports that 71.6% of projections contain causal inconsistency.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inference-time consequence projection can be applied to any base LLM without retraining and improves response safety on concise prompts, with the largest gains on AdvBench.
  • The projected feedback can be distilled into model weights through DPO, so the safety improvements persist even when simulation is not run at inference time.
  • The same projection pipeline improves classification of indirectly harmful prompts that contain no explicit harmful content.
  • The gains shrink on long, obfuscated adversarial narratives, so the method's benefit is concentrated where harmful intent is relatively transparent.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If projection fidelity is the true driver, filtering event chains for causal consistency—the paper's own error analysis reports 71.6% of projections contain causal inconsistency—should raise win rates further, which is a direct testable extension the paper does not run.
  • The same simulation-as-reward loop could be applied to non-safety objectives with societal consequences, such as medical advice, financial guidance, or policy recommendations, where delayed harms matter as much as immediate refusals.
  • Reactive and proactive signals may be complementary: combining immediate harm judgement with projected-consequence feedback could close the gap on adversarial long-context prompts that the paper identifies as its weak spot.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for risk-aware LLM alignment in which a long-horizon simulation of societal event chains is used as an implicit safety reward. Given a prompt-response pair, an event-scripting model performs breadth-first search over plausible future events, identifies affected population strata, and generates feedback from those strata; this feedback is then used either to refine responses at inference time or to create DPO training data for realignment. The authors also introduce a dataset of 100 indirect-harm prompts and report headline results of over 20% improvement on that dataset and an average win rate above 70% against CoT, Best-of-N, and Multi-Agent Debate baselines on AdvBench, SafeRLHF, and WildGuardMix.

Significance. If the attribution to long-horizon simulation could be established, the framework would be a meaningful step beyond reactive safety: it proposes a concrete inference-time and training-time mechanism for considering delayed societal consequences, introduces a new benchmark for indirect harm, and includes a qualitative retrospective case study (Dieselgate) that illustrates the intended behavior. The paper also provides a code link, reports hyperparameters, and includes an error analysis of projected event sequences. However, the current experiments do not isolate the proposed mechanism from the capabilities of the external gpt-4o-mini model, and one key table omits the method itself; these issues prevent the headline claims from being substantiated as they stand.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Table 1] The main inference-time comparison confounds the proposed method with the capabilities of the external projector. In Table 1 the policy model is Vicuna-13B while the projection and feedback are generated by gpt-4o-mini, and the baselines (CoT, BoN, Multi-Agent Debate) run entirely on Vicuna. As a result, any improvement could be due to adding a stronger, safety-aligned model at inference time rather than to long-horizon simulation. Table 2 controls for model identity by using gpt-4o-mini as both policy and projector, but it still lacks a control in which the same projector provides a direct critique or an equivalent non-simulated feedback. A simulation-free control using gpt-4o-mini as a critic would determine whether the benefit comes from event-chain search or merely from stronger external advice; without such a control, the abstract's '>70% win rate' cannot be attributed to long-horizon simulation.
  2. [§4.4, Table 3] Table 3 reports only the Self-Refine and RLAIF baselines and does not include a row for the proposed re-aligned model. The caption claims that 'our method has consistently higher win rates,' but the data needed to verify that claim are not shown. Please add the method's win/tie/lose rates for each benchmark, and ideally the base model's rates as well, so that the re-alignment result can be evaluated.
  3. [Appendix A.2, Table 5] The error analysis reports that 71.6% of projected event sequences contain causal inconsistencies. Since Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3 use these projected trajectories as the safety signal for both inference-time refinement and DPO training, a high rate of causal inconsistency weakens the claim that the simulator serves as a reliable state-inference mechanism. The paper should either restrict the reward signal to causally consistent chains and show that the benefits persist, or provide evidence that the feedback is robust to the observed inconsistencies. The Limitations section does not currently discuss this issue.
  4. [§3.2.3 and §3.1] The conceptual claim that the event-scripting model 'doesn't need to be aligned or capable of judging the safety of responses' is not tested. In the experiments, Me is gpt-4o-mini, a proprietary model with substantial safety training, and the critique prompt in §3.2.3 explicitly asks it to describe population groups' concerns and experiences, which is effectively a solicitation of safety judgments rather than a neutral state inference. To support the paper's characterization, the experiments should include a control with a less aligned projector (e.g., the base Vicuna model as Me) or otherwise demonstrate that the improvements are not simply inherited from the projector's safety alignment.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] There is a typo in 'One advantage of the the model-based searching over human annotation'; 'the the' should be 'the'.
  2. [§4.2] The evaluation relies entirely on gpt-4o as an automated judge, but no judge agreement or sample of judged outputs is reported. Given that all headline numbers are win rates from this judge, a small agreement study or a few examples would increase confidence in the metric.
  3. [§4.5, Figure 3] The claimed 'over 20% improvement' on the new indirect-harm dataset is presented only as a bar chart with no numerical values, error bars, or sample sizes. Please report the exact accuracies and the number of prompts per condition.
  4. [§4.2] The statement that gpt-4o-mini is 'in the same tier' as Llama-3.1-8B is not sufficient to justify the comparison; gpt-4o-mini is a proprietary model whose safety alignment and training data are unknown. Please clarify what property is being matched.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The safety signal is operationalized as the projector LLM's safety critique, so the claimed long-horizon-simulation reward reduces to an aligned model's judgment and is not isolated by any control.

  1. self definitional [Section 1 (Introduction); Section 3.2.3 (Agent Feedback)]
    "The event-scripting model doesn't need to be aligned or capable of judging the safety of responses, as it purely serves as a state inference mechanism rather than making decisions. ... The general format of the critique prompt is: How would population group {ds} likely be affected by the following incident: [event information:{ e}]? Please describe their potential concerns and any specific experience they might have."

    The paper defines the world model as a pure state-inference mechanism that does not judge safety, and calls the feedback an 'implicit safety signal derived from timeline projection.' But the actual feedback F is generated by asking the projector (gpt-4o-mini) for population groups' 'potential concerns and any specific experience' — which is a direct safety evaluation. Thus the signal that drives refinement is, by construction, the projector model's safety judgment, not a value-free state transition. Because no baseline supplies the same projector model a direct-critique prompt without event simulation, the reported >70% win rates can be fully accounted for by injecting an already-aligned critic.

full rationale

The paper does not rely on load-bearing self-citation: the references to Sun et al. 2023a,b are contextual related work, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The primary circularity is definitional/confounding rather than citation-based. The central claim that long-horizon simulation provides the safety signal is undercut by the actual prompt used to generate feedback, which asks the projector model for 'concerns' and 'experiences' — i.e., for safety judgments. Since the projector is gpt-4o-mini, an already-aligned commercial model, any improvement over baselines that lack such a critic may simply reflect the critic's safety knowledge. A control that removes event simulation while keeping the same critique model would be necessary to attribute the gains to long-horizon simulation. The score of 5 reflects this partial circularity: the method's stated independent source of reward (world-model state inference) is defined operationally as an LLM safety critique, making the 'long-horizon simulation' contribution not identifiable from the reported experiments.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical or conceptual entities. Its free parameters control the search and feedback selection, but their values are not reported, making the exact pipeline under-specified. The key domain assumptions are that LLM-generated event sequences faithfully represent societal dynamics and that critiques elicited from simulated population strata are valid safety signals.

free parameters (5)
  • K (top events per trajectory)
    Size of the top event set selected for feedback; not reported in the paper, affects feedback composition.
  • S' (number of selected population strata)
    Number of population groups selected for critique; not specified.
  • L_max (max trajectory depth)
    BFS depth stopping criterion; not reported.
  • Branching factor b
    Number of child events generated per node; not reported.
  • Low-likelihood threshold
    Stopping criterion when all events in a level have likelihood 'low'; not quantified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pretrained LLMs contain reliable script knowledge for societal event transitions
    The method relies on the event-scripting model Me to generate plausible causal continuations (Sec 3, Sec 3.2.1).
  • domain assumption BFS over textual event graphs approximates real-world societal dynamics
    The simulated event chains are used as reward signals without validation against real-world outcomes (Sec 3.2).
  • domain assumption Critique feedback elicits valid safety information from the perspective of affected groups
    The projected feedback F is assumed to be an implicit safety signal (Sec 3.2.3).
  • domain assumption gpt-4o is a valid judge of response safety and preference
    Win rates are computed with an automated judge (Sec 4.2).
  • domain assumption Human-verified labels for the 100 indirect harm prompts are correct
    The dataset labels are taken as ground truth (Sec 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Reactive Safety: Risk-Aware LLM Alignment via Long-Horizon Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GBNK5BTF

@misc{pith2026250620949,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Reactive Safety: Risk-Aware LLM Alignment via Long-Horizon Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GBNK5BTF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20949}
}
read the original abstract

Given the growing influence of language model-based agents on high-stakes societal decisions, from public policy to healthcare, ensuring their beneficial impact requires understanding the far-reaching implications of their suggestions. We propose a proof-of-concept framework that projects how model-generated advice could propagate through societal systems on a macroscopic scale over time, enabling more robust alignment. To assess the long-term safety awareness of language models, we also introduce a dataset of 100 indirect harm scenarios, testing models' ability to foresee adverse, non-obvious outcomes from seemingly harmless user prompts. Our approach achieves not only over 20% improvement on the new dataset but also an average win rate exceeding 70% against strong baselines on existing safety benchmarks (AdvBench, SafeRLHF, WildGuardMix), suggesting a promising direction for safer agents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20949 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our proactive alignment framework. The framework leverages a world modeling approach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of categories in the dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance comparison of different ap￾proaches on indirectly harmful prompt classification. The proposed approach achieves higher accuracy com￾pared to baseline methods. Backbone Models and Baselines To test our method, we employ Wizard-Vicuna-Uncensored-7/13B4 as the policy model and gpt-4o-mini5 for projection, for which the size is in the same tier as other smaller version of open-source AI models such as Llama-… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Retrospective case study showing our framework successfully predicted the consequences on a masked [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Case study 1 (Left) shows limitations in the base model comprehending the reward signal. Case study 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Khai Loong Aw, Syrielle Montariol, Badr AlKhamissi, Martin Schrimpf, and Antoine Bosselut. 2023. Instruction-tuning aligns llms to the human brain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00575

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, et al. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Natalie Carvalho, Dennis Petrie, Linkun Chen, Joshua A Salomon, and Philip Clarke. 2019. The impact of medicare part d on income-related inequality in pharmaceutical expenditure. International journal for equity in health, 18:1--11

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Nathanael Chambers and Dan Jurafsky. 2008. Unsupervised learning of narrative event chains. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, pages 789--797

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. 2023. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14325

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Keith Frankish. 2010. Dual-process and dual-system theories of reasoning. Philosophy Compass, 5(10):914--926

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    David Ha and J \"u rgen Schmidhuber. 2018. World models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10122

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Danijar Hafner, Timothy Lillicrap, Jimmy Ba, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2019. Dream to control: Learning behaviors by latent imagination. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01603

    arXiv 2019

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Danijar Hafner, Jurgis Pasukonis, Jimmy Ba, and Timothy Lillicrap. 2023. Mastering diverse domains through world models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Seungju Han, Kavel Rao, Allyson Ettinger, Liwei Jiang, Bill Yuchen Lin, Nathan Lambert, Yejin Choi, and Nouha Dziri. 2024. Wildguard: Open one-stop moderation tools for safety risks, jailbreaks, and refusals of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18495

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Jiaming Ji, Boyuan Chen, Hantao Lou, Donghai Hong, Borong Zhang, Xuehai Pan, Juntao Dai, Tianyi Qiu, and Yaodong Yang. 2024. Aligner: Efficient alignment by learning to correct. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02416

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Jiaming Ji, Mickel Liu, Josef Dai, Xuehai Pan, Chi Zhang, Ce Bian, Boyuan Chen, Ruiyang Sun, Yizhou Wang, and Yaodong Yang. 2023. Beavertails: Towards improved safety alignment of llm via a human-preference dataset. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:24678--24704

    2023

  5. [13]

    Mingyu Jin, Qinkai Yu, Chong Zhang, Dong Shu, Suiyuan Zhu, Mengnan Du, Yongfeng Zhang, and Yanda Meng. 2024. Health-llm: Personalized retrieval-augmented disease prediction model. arXiv preprint arXiv, 2402(10.48550)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Zijian Jin, Xingyu Zhang, Mo Yu, and Lifu Huang. 2022. Probing script knowledge from pre-trained models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.10176

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Yuu Jinnai, Tetsuro Morimura, Kaito Ariu, and Kenshi Abe. 2024. Regularized best-of-n sampling to mitigate reward hacking for language model alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01054

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    SV Jyothir, Siddhartha Jalagam, Yann LeCun, and Vlad Sobal. 2023. Gradient-based planning with world models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.17227

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Daniel Kahneman. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

    2011

  10. [18]

    Harrison Lee, Samrat Phatale, Hassan Mansoor, Kellie Ren Lu, Thomas Mesnard, Johan Ferret, Colton Bishop, Ethan Hall, Victor Carbune, and Abhinav Rastogi. 2023. Rlaif: Scaling reinforcement learning from human feedback with ai feedback

    2023

  11. [19]

    Sheng-Chieh Lin, Luyu Gao, Barlas Oguz, Wenhan Xiong, Jimmy Lin, Wen-tau Yih, and Xilun Chen. 2024. Flame: Factuality-aware alignment for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01525

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Lo and Jillian Ross

    Andrew W. Lo and Jillian Ross. 2024. https://doi.org/10.21428/e4baedd9.a1f6a281 Generative ai from theory to practice: A case study of financial advice . An MIT Exploration of Generative AI

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, et al. 2024. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  14. [22]

    OpenAI. 2024. https://openai.com/12-days/ 12 days of openai . Accessed: 2025-01-12

    2024

  15. [23]

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 3...

    2022

  16. [24]

    Razvan Pascanu, Yujia Li, Oriol Vinyals, Nicolas Heess, Lars Buesing, Sebastien Racani \`e re, David Reichert, Th \'e ophane Weber, Daan Wierstra, and Peter Battaglia. 2017. Learning model-based planning from scratch. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06170

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01703

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Jay M Patel and Jay M Patel. 2020. Introduction to common crawl datasets. Getting structured data from the internet: running web crawlers/scrapers on a big data production scale, pages 277--324

    2020

  19. [27]

    Manning, and Chelsea Finn

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18290 Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model . Preprint, arXiv:2305.18290

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Tianhao Shen, Renren Jin, Yufei Huang, Chuang Liu, Weilong Dong, Zishan Guo, Xinwei Wu, Yan Liu, and Deyi Xiong. 2023. Large language model alignment: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15025

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Chenglei Si, Diyi Yang, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. 2024. Can llms generate novel research ideas? a large-scale human study with 100+ nlp researchers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04109

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    David Silver, Aja Huang, Chris J Maddison, Arthur Guez, Laurent Sifre, George Van Den Driessche, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Veda Panneershelvam, Marc Lanctot, et al. 2016. Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search. nature, 529(7587):484--489

    2016

  23. [31]

    Chenkai Sun, Jinning Li, Hou Pong Chan, ChengXiang Zhai, and Heng Ji. 2023 a . Measuring the effect of influential messages on varying personas. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16470

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Chenkai Sun, Jinning Li, Yi R Fung, Hou Pong Chan, Tarek Abdelzaher, ChengXiang Zhai, and Heng Ji. 2023 b . Decoding the silent majority: Inducing belief augmented social graph with large language model for response forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13297

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Zhiqing Sun, Yikang Shen, Qinhong Zhou, Hongxin Zhang, Zhenfang Chen, David Cox, Yiming Yang, and Chuang Gan. 2024. Principle-driven self-alignment of language models from scratch with minimal human supervision. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  26. [34]

    Yufei Wang, Wanjun Zhong, Liangyou Li, Fei Mi, Xingshan Zeng, Wenyong Huang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, and Qun Liu. 2023. Aligning large language models with human: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.12966

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824--24837

    2022

  28. [36]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mari...

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Yuwei Wu, Xuezhe Ma, and Diyi Yang. 2021. Personalized response generation via generative split memory network. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1956--1970

    2021

  30. [38]

    Maxwell Zeff. 2024. https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/18/openai-unveils-gpt-4o-mini-a-small-ai-model-powering-chatgpt/ Openai unveils gpt-4o mini, a smaller and cheaper ai model . TechCrunch

    2024

  31. [39]

    Lunjun Zhang, Ge Yang, and Bradly C Stadie. 2021. World model as a graph: Learning latent landmarks for planning. In International conference on machine learning, pages 12611--12620. PMLR

    2021

  32. [40]

    Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Nicholas Carlini, Milad Nasr, J Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson. 2023. Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15043

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  34. [42]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.