Fazl Barez
Publications
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.