new

Get trending papers in your email inbox!

Subscribe

byAK and the research community

Jun 26

Unsupervised Real-World Denoising: Sparsity is All You Need

Supervised training for real-world denoising presents challenges due to the difficulty of collecting large datasets of paired noisy and clean images. Recent methods have attempted to address this by utilizing unpaired datasets of clean and noisy images. Some approaches leverage such unpaired data to train denoisers in a supervised manner by generating synthetic clean-noisy pairs. However, these methods often fall short due to the distribution gap between synthetic and real noisy images. To mitigate this issue, we propose a solution based on input sparsification, specifically using random input masking. Our method, which we refer to as Mask, Inpaint and Denoise (MID), trains a denoiser to simultaneously denoise and inpaint synthetic clean-noisy pairs. On one hand, input sparsification reduces the gap between synthetic and real noisy images. On the other hand, an inpainter trained in a supervised manner can still accurately reconstruct sparse inputs by predicting missing clean pixels using the remaining unmasked pixels. Our approach begins with a synthetic Gaussian noise sampler and iteratively refines it using a noise dataset derived from the denoiser's predictions. The noise dataset is created by subtracting predicted pseudo-clean images from real noisy images at each iteration. The core intuition is that improving the denoiser results in a more accurate noise dataset and, consequently, a better noise sampler. We validate our method through extensive experiments on real-world noisy image datasets, demonstrating competitive performance compared to existing unsupervised denoising methods.

Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training

Humans are capable of strategically deceptive behavior: behaving helpfully in most situations, but then behaving very differently in order to pursue alternative objectives when given the opportunity. If an AI system learned such a deceptive strategy, could we detect it and remove it using current state-of-the-art safety training techniques? To study this question, we construct proof-of-concept examples of deceptive behavior in large language models (LLMs). For example, we train models that write secure code when the prompt states that the year is 2023, but insert exploitable code when the stated year is 2024. We find that such backdoored behavior can be made persistent, so that it is not removed by standard safety training techniques, including supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and adversarial training (eliciting unsafe behavior and then training to remove it). The backdoored behavior is most persistent in the largest models and in models trained to produce chain-of-thought reasoning about deceiving the training process, with the persistence remaining even when the chain-of-thought is distilled away. Furthermore, rather than removing backdoors, we find that adversarial training can teach models to better recognize their backdoor triggers, effectively hiding the unsafe behavior. Our results suggest that, once a model exhibits deceptive behavior, standard techniques could fail to remove such deception and create a false impression of safety.

Confidence-Building Measures for Artificial Intelligence: Workshop Proceedings

Foundation models could eventually introduce several pathways for undermining state security: accidents, inadvertent escalation, unintentional conflict, the proliferation of weapons, and the interference with human diplomacy are just a few on a long list. The Confidence-Building Measures for Artificial Intelligence workshop hosted by the Geopolitics Team at OpenAI and the Berkeley Risk and Security Lab at the University of California brought together a multistakeholder group to think through the tools and strategies to mitigate the potential risks introduced by foundation models to international security. Originating in the Cold War, confidence-building measures (CBMs) are actions that reduce hostility, prevent conflict escalation, and improve trust between parties. The flexibility of CBMs make them a key instrument for navigating the rapid changes in the foundation model landscape. Participants identified the following CBMs that directly apply to foundation models and which are further explained in this conference proceedings: 1. crisis hotlines 2. incident sharing 3. model, transparency, and system cards 4. content provenance and watermarks 5. collaborative red teaming and table-top exercises and 6. dataset and evaluation sharing. Because most foundation model developers are non-government entities, many CBMs will need to involve a wider stakeholder community. These measures can be implemented either by AI labs or by relevant government actors.