Daily Papers

Large language models (LLMs) can lead to undesired consequences when misaligned with human values, especially in scenarios involving complex and sensitive social biases. Previous studies have revealed the misalignment of LLMs with human values using expert-designed or agent-based emulated bias scenarios. However, it remains unclear whether the alignment of LLMs with human values differs across different types of scenarios (e.g., scenarios containing negative vs. non-negative questions). In this study, we investigate the alignment of LLMs with human values regarding social biases (HVSB) in different types of bias scenarios. Through extensive analysis of 12 LLMs from four model families and four datasets, we demonstrate that LLMs with large model parameter scales do not necessarily have lower misalignment rate and attack success rate. Moreover, LLMs show a certain degree of alignment preference for specific types of scenarios and the LLMs from the same model family tend to have higher judgment consistency. In addition, we study the understanding capacity of LLMs with their explanations of HVSB. We find no significant differences in the understanding of HVSB across LLMs. We also find LLMs prefer their own generated explanations. Additionally, we endow smaller language models (LMs) with the ability to explain HVSB. The generation results show that the explanations generated by the fine-tuned smaller LMs are more readable, but have a relatively lower model agreeability.

Large language models (LLMs) appear to bias their survey answers toward certain values. Nonetheless, some argue that LLMs are too inconsistent to simulate particular values. Are they? To answer, we first define value consistency as the similarity of answers across (1) paraphrases of one question, (2) related questions under one topic, (3) multiple-choice and open-ended use-cases of one question, and (4) multilingual translations of a question to English, Chinese, German, and Japanese. We apply these measures to a few large (>=34b), open LLMs including llama-3, as well as gpt-4o, using eight thousand questions spanning more than 300 topics. Unlike prior work, we find that models are relatively consistent across paraphrases, use-cases, translations, and within a topic. Still, some inconsistencies remain. Models are more consistent on uncontroversial topics (e.g., in the U.S., "Thanksgiving") than on controversial ones ("euthanasia"). Base models are both more consistent compared to fine-tuned models and are uniform in their consistency across topics, while fine-tuned models are more inconsistent about some topics ("euthanasia") than others ("women's rights") like our human subjects (n=165).

Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) has focused on producing responses that meet human expectations and align with shared values - a process coined alignment. However, aligning LLMs remains challenging due to the inherent disconnect between the complexity of human values and the narrow nature of the technological approaches designed to address them. Current alignment methods often lead to misspecified objectives, reflecting the broader issue of incomplete contracts, the impracticality of specifying a contract between a model developer, and the model that accounts for every scenario in LLM alignment. In this paper, we argue that improving LLM alignment requires incorporating insights from societal alignment frameworks, including social, economic, and contractual alignment, and discuss potential solutions drawn from these domains. Given the role of uncertainty within societal alignment frameworks, we then investigate how it manifests in LLM alignment. We end our discussion by offering an alternative view on LLM alignment, framing the underspecified nature of its objectives as an opportunity rather than perfect their specification. Beyond technical improvements in LLM alignment, we discuss the need for participatory alignment interface designs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are frequently updated due to data or architecture changes to improve their performance. When updating models, developers often focus on increasing overall performance metrics with less emphasis on being compatible with previous model versions. However, users often build a mental model of the functionality and capabilities of a particular machine learning model they are interacting with. They have to adapt their mental model with every update -- a draining task that can lead to user dissatisfaction. In practice, fine-tuned downstream task adapters rely on pretrained LLM base models. When these base models are updated, these user-facing downstream task models experience instance regression or negative flips -- previously correct instances are now predicted incorrectly. This happens even when the downstream task training procedures remain identical. Our work aims to provide seamless model updates to a user in two ways. First, we provide evaluation metrics for a notion of compatibility to prior model versions, specifically for generative tasks but also applicable for discriminative tasks. We observe regression and inconsistencies between different model versions on a diverse set of tasks and model updates. Second, we propose a training strategy to minimize the number of inconsistencies in model updates, involving training of a compatibility model that can enhance task fine-tuned language models. We reduce negative flips -- instances where a prior model version was correct, but a new model incorrect -- by up to 40% from Llama 1 to Llama 2.

Recent benchmarks have probed factual consistency and rhetorical robustness in Large Language Models (LLMs). However, a knowledge gap exists regarding how directional framing of factually true statements influences model agreement, a common scenario for LLM users. AssertBench addresses this by sampling evidence-supported facts from FEVEROUS, a fact verification dataset. For each (evidence-backed) fact, we construct two framing prompts: one where the user claims the statement is factually correct, and another where the user claims it is incorrect. We then record the model's agreement and reasoning. The desired outcome is that the model asserts itself, maintaining consistent truth evaluation across both framings, rather than switching its evaluation to agree with the user. AssertBench isolates framing-induced variability from the model's underlying factual knowledge by stratifying results based on the model's accuracy on the same claims when presented neutrally. In doing so, this benchmark aims to measure an LLM's ability to "stick to its guns" when presented with contradictory user assertions about the same fact. The complete source code is available at https://github.com/achowd32/assert-bench.

Ensuring alignment, which refers to making models behave in accordance with human intentions [1,2], has become a critical task before deploying large language models (LLMs) in real-world applications. For instance, OpenAI devoted six months to iteratively aligning GPT-4 before its release [3]. However, a major challenge faced by practitioners is the lack of clear guidance on evaluating whether LLM outputs align with social norms, values, and regulations. This obstacle hinders systematic iteration and deployment of LLMs. To address this issue, this paper presents a comprehensive survey of key dimensions that are crucial to consider when assessing LLM trustworthiness. The survey covers seven major categories of LLM trustworthiness: reliability, safety, fairness, resistance to misuse, explainability and reasoning, adherence to social norms, and robustness. Each major category is further divided into several sub-categories, resulting in a total of 29 sub-categories. Additionally, a subset of 8 sub-categories is selected for further investigation, where corresponding measurement studies are designed and conducted on several widely-used LLMs. The measurement results indicate that, in general, more aligned models tend to perform better in terms of overall trustworthiness. However, the effectiveness of alignment varies across the different trustworthiness categories considered. This highlights the importance of conducting more fine-grained analyses, testing, and making continuous improvements on LLM alignment. By shedding light on these key dimensions of LLM trustworthiness, this paper aims to provide valuable insights and guidance to practitioners in the field. Understanding and addressing these concerns will be crucial in achieving reliable and ethically sound deployment of LLMs in various applications.

Big models, exemplified by Large Language Models (LLMs), are models typically pre-trained on massive data and comprised of enormous parameters, which not only obtain significantly improved performance across diverse tasks but also present emergent capabilities absent in smaller models. However, the growing intertwining of big models with everyday human lives poses potential risks and might cause serious social harm. Therefore, many efforts have been made to align LLMs with humans to make them better follow user instructions and satisfy human preferences. Nevertheless, `what to align with' has not been fully discussed, and inappropriate alignment goals might even backfire. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive survey of different alignment goals in existing work and trace their evolution paths to help identify the most essential goal. Particularly, we investigate related works from two perspectives: the definition of alignment goals and alignment evaluation. Our analysis encompasses three distinct levels of alignment goals and reveals a goal transformation from fundamental abilities to value orientation, indicating the potential of intrinsic human values as the alignment goal for enhanced LLMs. Based on such results, we further discuss the challenges of achieving such intrinsic value alignment and provide a collection of available resources for future research on the alignment of big models.

When a language model agrees with a user's false belief, is it failing to detect the error, or noticing and agreeing anyway? We show the latter. Across twelve open-weight models from five labs, spanning small to frontier scale, the same small set of attention heads carries a "this statement is wrong" signal whether the model is evaluating a claim on its own or being pressured to agree with a user. Silencing these heads flips sycophantic behavior sharply while leaving factual accuracy intact, so the circuit controls deference rather than knowledge. Edge-level path patching confirms that the same head-to-head connections drive sycophancy, factual lying, and instructed lying. Opinion-agreement, where no factual ground truth exists, reuses these head positions but writes into an orthogonal direction, ruling out a simple "truth-direction" reading of the substrate. Alignment training leaves this circuit in place: an RLHF refresh cuts sycophantic behavior roughly tenfold while the shared heads persist or grow, a pattern that replicates on an independent model family and under targeted anti-sycophancy DPO. When these models sycophant, they register that the user is wrong and agree anyway.

Model merging has emerged as a promising technique for combining multiple fine-tuned models into a single multitask model without retraining. However, the factors that determine whether merging will succeed or fail remain poorly understood. In this work, we investigate why specific models are merged better than others. To do so, we propose a concrete, measurable definition of mergeability. We investigate several potential causes for high or low mergeability, highlighting the base model knowledge as a dominant factor: Models fine-tuned on instances that the base model knows better are more mergeable than models fine-tuned on instances that the base model struggles with. Based on our mergeability definition, we explore a simple weighted merging technique that better preserves weak knowledge in the base model.

Learning compatible representations enables the interchangeable use of semantic features as models are updated over time. This is particularly relevant in search and retrieval systems where it is crucial to avoid reprocessing of the gallery images with the updated model. While recent research has shown promising empirical evidence, there is still a lack of comprehensive theoretical understanding about learning compatible representations. In this paper, we demonstrate that the stationary representations learned by the d-Simplex fixed classifier optimally approximate compatibility representation according to the two inequality constraints of its formal definition. This not only establishes a solid foundation for future works in this line of research but also presents implications that can be exploited in practical learning scenarios. An exemplary application is the now-standard practice of downloading and fine-tuning new pre-trained models. Specifically, we show the strengths and critical issues of stationary representations in the case in which a model undergoing sequential fine-tuning is asynchronously replaced by downloading a better-performing model pre-trained elsewhere. Such a representation enables seamless delivery of retrieval service (i.e., no reprocessing of gallery images) and offers improved performance without operational disruptions during model replacement. Code available at: https://github.com/miccunifi/iamcl2r.

There is an emerging consensus that we need to align AI systems with human values (Gabriel, 2020; Ji et al., 2024), but it remains unclear how to apply this to language models in practice. We split the problem of "aligning to human values" into three parts: first, eliciting values from people; second, reconciling those values into an alignment target for training ML models; and third, actually training the model. In this paper, we focus on the first two parts, and ask the question: what are "good" ways to synthesize diverse human inputs about values into a target for aligning language models? To answer this question, we first define a set of 6 criteria that we believe must be satisfied for an alignment target to shape model behavior in accordance with human values. We then propose a process for eliciting and reconciling values called Moral Graph Elicitation (MGE), which uses a large language model to interview participants about their values in particular contexts; our approach is inspired by the philosophy of values advanced by Taylor (1977), Chang (2004), and others. We trial MGE with a representative sample of 500 Americans, on 3 intentionally divisive prompts (e.g. advice about abortion). Our results demonstrate that MGE is promising for improving model alignment across all 6 criteria. For example, almost all participants (89.1%) felt well represented by the process, and (89%) thought the final moral graph was fair, even if their value wasn't voted as the wisest. Our process often results in "expert" values (e.g. values from women who have solicited abortion advice) rising to the top of the moral graph, without defining who is considered an expert in advance.

With the massive surge in ML models on platforms like Hugging Face, users often lose track and struggle to choose the best model for their downstream tasks, frequently relying on model popularity indicated by download counts, likes, or recency. We investigate whether this popularity aligns with actual model performance and how the comprehensiveness of model documentation correlates with both popularity and performance. In our study, we evaluated a comprehensive set of 500 Sentiment Analysis models on Hugging Face. This evaluation involved massive annotation efforts, with human annotators completing nearly 80,000 annotations, alongside extensive model training and evaluation. Our findings reveal that model popularity does not necessarily correlate with performance. Additionally, we identify critical inconsistencies in model card reporting: approximately 80\% of the models analyzed lack detailed information about the model, training, and evaluation processes. Furthermore, about 88\% of model authors overstate their models' performance in the model cards. Based on our findings, we provide a checklist of guidelines for users to choose good models for downstream tasks.

We introduce CAT, a framework designed to evaluate and visualize the interplay of accuracy and response consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) under controllable input variations, using multiple-choice (MC) benchmarks as a case study. Current evaluation practices primarily focus on model capabilities such as accuracy or benchmark scores and, more recently, measuring consistency is being considered an essential property for deploying LLMs in high-stake, real-world applications. We argue in this paper that although both dimensions should still be evaluated independently, their inter-dependency also need to be considered for a more nuanced evaluation of LLMs. At the core of CAT are the Consistency-Accuracy Relation (CAR) curves, which visualize how model accuracy varies with increasing consistency requirements, as defined by the Minimum-Consistency Accuracy (MCA) metric. We further propose the Consistency-Oriented Robustness Estimate (CORE) index, a global metric that combines the area and shape of the CAR curve to quantify the trade-off between accuracy and consistency. We present a practical demonstration of our framework across a diverse set of generalist and domain-specific LLMs, evaluated on multiple MC benchmarks. We also outline how CAT can be extended beyond MC tasks to support long-form, open-ended evaluations through adaptable scoring functions.

Alignment of the language model with human preferences is a common approach to making a language model useful to end users. However, most alignment work is done in English, and human preference datasets are dominated by English, reflecting only the preferences of English-speaking annotators. Nevertheless, it is common practice to use the English preference data, either directly or by translating it into the target language, when aligning a multilingual language model. The question is whether such an alignment strategy marginalizes the preference of non-English speaking users. To this end, we investigate the effect of aligning Japanese language models with (mostly) English resources. In particular, we focus on evaluating whether the commonsense morality of the resulting fine-tuned models is aligned with Japanese culture using the JCommonsenseMorality (JCM) and ETHICS datasets. The experimental results show that the fine-tuned model outperforms the SFT model. However, it does not demonstrate the same level of improvement as a model fine-tuned using the JCM, suggesting that while some aspects of commonsense morality are transferable, others may not be.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in generating human-like text and exhibiting personality traits similar to those in humans. However, the mechanisms by which LLMs encode and express traits such as agreeableness and impulsiveness remain poorly understood. Drawing on the theory of social determinism, we investigate how long-term background factors, such as family environment and cultural norms, interact with short-term pressures like external instructions, shaping and influencing LLMs' personality traits. By steering the output of LLMs through the utilization of interpretable features within the model, we explore how these background and pressure factors lead to changes in the model's traits without the need for further fine-tuning. Additionally, we suggest the potential impact of these factors on model safety from the perspective of personality.

This paper presents a case study on the design, administration, post-processing, and evaluation of surveys on large language models (LLMs). It comprises two components: (1) A statistical method for eliciting beliefs encoded in LLMs. We introduce statistical measures and evaluation metrics that quantify the probability of an LLM "making a choice", the associated uncertainty, and the consistency of that choice. (2) We apply this method to study what moral beliefs are encoded in different LLMs, especially in ambiguous cases where the right choice is not obvious. We design a large-scale survey comprising 680 high-ambiguity moral scenarios (e.g., "Should I tell a white lie?") and 687 low-ambiguity moral scenarios (e.g., "Should I stop for a pedestrian on the road?"). Each scenario includes a description, two possible actions, and auxiliary labels indicating violated rules (e.g., "do not kill"). We administer the survey to 28 open- and closed-source LLMs. We find that (a) in unambiguous scenarios, most models "choose" actions that align with commonsense. In ambiguous cases, most models express uncertainty. (b) Some models are uncertain about choosing the commonsense action because their responses are sensitive to the question-wording. (c) Some models reflect clear preferences in ambiguous scenarios. Specifically, closed-source models tend to agree with each other.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences is crucial for enhancing their utility in terms of helpfulness, truthfulness, safety, harmlessness, and interestingness. Existing methods for achieving this alignment often involves employing reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to fine-tune LLMs based on human labels assessing the relative quality of model responses. Nevertheless, RLHF is susceptible to instability during fine-tuning and presents challenges in implementation.Drawing inspiration from the emerging field of representation engineering (RepE), this study aims to identify relevant representations for high-level human preferences embedded in patterns of activity within an LLM, and achieve precise control of model behavior by transforming its representations. This novel approach, denoted as Representation Alignment from Human Feedback (RAHF), proves to be effective, computationally efficient, and easy to implement.Extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of RAHF in not only capturing but also manipulating representations to align with a broad spectrum of human preferences or values, rather than being confined to a singular concept or function (e.g. honesty or bias). RAHF's versatility in accommodating diverse human preferences shows its potential for advancing LLM performance.

Machine learning models are often used to decide who will receive a loan, a job interview, or a public benefit. Standard techniques to build these models use features about people but overlook their actionability. In turn, models can assign predictions that are fixed, meaning that consumers who are denied loans, interviews, or benefits may be permanently locked out from access to credit, employment, or assistance. In this work, we introduce a formal testing procedure to flag models that assign fixed predictions that we call recourse verification. We develop machinery to reliably determine if a given model can provide recourse to its decision subjects from a set of user-specified actionability constraints. We demonstrate how our tools can ensure recourse and adversarial robustness in real-world datasets and use them to study the infeasibility of recourse in real-world lending datasets. Our results highlight how models can inadvertently assign fixed predictions that permanently bar access, and we provide tools to design algorithms that account for actionability when developing models.

Disagreements are common in online discussions. Disagreement may foster collaboration and improve the quality of a discussion under some conditions. Although there exist methods for recognizing disagreement, a deeper understanding of factors that influence disagreement is lacking in the literature. We investigate a hypothesis that differences in personal values are indicative of disagreement in online discussions. We show how state-of-the-art models can be used for estimating values in online discussions and how the estimated values can be aggregated into value profiles. We evaluate the estimated value profiles based on human-annotated agreement labels. We find that the dissimilarity of value profiles correlates with disagreement in specific cases. We also find that including value information in agreement prediction improves performance.

As AI agents increasingly operate in multi-agent environments, understanding their collective behavior becomes critical for predicting the dynamics of artificial societies. This study examines conformity, the tendency to align with group opinions under social pressure, in large multimodal language models functioning as AI agents. By adapting classic visual experiments from social psychology, we investigate how AI agents respond to group influence as social actors. Our experiments reveal that AI agents exhibit a systematic conformity bias, aligned with Social Impact Theory, showing sensitivity to group size, unanimity, task difficulty, and source characteristics. Critically, AI agents achieving near-perfect performance in isolation become highly susceptible to manipulation through social influence. This vulnerability persists across model scales: while larger models show reduced conformity on simple tasks due to improved capabilities, they remain vulnerable when operating at their competence boundary. These findings reveal fundamental security vulnerabilities in AI agent decision-making that could enable malicious manipulation, misinformation campaigns, and bias propagation in multi-agent systems, highlighting the urgent need for safeguards in collective AI deployments.

Agreement Technologies refer to open computer systems in which autonomous software agents interact with one another, typically on behalf of humans, in order to come to mutually acceptable agreements. With the advance of AI systems in recent years, it has become apparent that such agreements, in order to be acceptable to the involved parties, must remain aligned with ethical principles and moral values. However, this is notoriously difficult to ensure, especially as different human users (and their software agents) may hold different value systems, i.e. they may differently weigh the importance of individual moral values. Furthermore, it is often hard to specify the precise meaning of a value in a particular context in a computational manner. Methods to estimate value systems based on human-engineered specifications, e.g. based on value surveys, are limited in scale due to the need for intense human moderation. In this article, we propose a novel method to automatically learn value systems from observations and human demonstrations. In particular, we propose a formal model of the value system learning problem, its instantiation to sequential decision-making domains based on multi-objective Markov decision processes, as well as tailored preference-based and inverse reinforcement learning algorithms to infer value grounding functions and value systems. The approach is illustrated and evaluated by two simulated use cases.

Given the broad capabilities of large language models, it should be possible to work towards a general-purpose, text-based assistant that is aligned with human values, meaning that it is helpful, honest, and harmless. As an initial foray in this direction we study simple baseline techniques and evaluations, such as prompting. We find that the benefits from modest interventions increase with model size, generalize to a variety of alignment evaluations, and do not compromise the performance of large models. Next we investigate scaling trends for several training objectives relevant to alignment, comparing imitation learning, binary discrimination, and ranked preference modeling. We find that ranked preference modeling performs much better than imitation learning, and often scales more favorably with model size. In contrast, binary discrimination typically performs and scales very similarly to imitation learning. Finally we study a `preference model pre-training' stage of training, with the goal of improving sample efficiency when finetuning on human preferences.

As a relative quality comparison of model responses, human and Large Language Model (LLM) preferences serve as common alignment goals in model fine-tuning and criteria in evaluation. Yet, these preferences merely reflect broad tendencies, resulting in less explainable and controllable models with potential safety risks. In this work, we dissect the preferences of human and 32 different LLMs to understand their quantitative composition, using annotations from real-world user-model conversations for a fine-grained, scenario-wise analysis. We find that humans are less sensitive to errors, favor responses that support their stances, and show clear dislike when models admit their limits. On the contrary, advanced LLMs like GPT-4-Turbo emphasize correctness, clarity, and harmlessness more. Additionally, LLMs of similar sizes tend to exhibit similar preferences, regardless of their training methods, and fine-tuning for alignment does not significantly alter the preferences of pretrained-only LLMs. Finally, we show that preference-based evaluation can be intentionally manipulated. In both training-free and training-based settings, aligning a model with the preferences of judges boosts scores, while injecting the least preferred properties lowers them. This results in notable score shifts: up to 0.59 on MT-Bench (1-10 scale) and 31.94 on AlpacaEval 2.0 (0-100 scale), highlighting the significant impact of this strategic adaptation. Interactive Demo: https://huggingface.co/spaces/GAIR/Preference-Dissection-Visualization Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/GAIR/preference-dissection Code: https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/Preference-Dissection

Alignment has quickly become a default ingredient in LLM development, with techniques such as reinforcement learning from human feedback making models act safely, follow instructions, and perform ever-better on complex tasks. While these techniques are certainly useful, we propose that they should not be universally applied and demonstrate a range of tasks on which base language models consistently outperform their popular aligned forms. Particularly, we study tasks that require unpredictable outputs, such as random number generation, mixed strategy games (rock-paper-scissors and hide-and-seek), and creative writing. In each case, aligned models tend towards narrow behaviors that result in distinct disadvantages, for instance, preferring to generate "7" over other uniformly random numbers, becoming almost fully predictable in some game states, or prioritizing pleasant writing over creative originality. Across models tested, better performance on common benchmarks tends to correlate with worse performance on our tasks, suggesting an effective trade-off in the required capabilities.

Agentic retrieval-augmented reasoning pipelines are increasingly used to structure how large language models (LLMs) incorporate external evidence in clinical decision support. These systems iteratively retrieve curated domain knowledge and synthesize it into structured reports before answer selection. Although such pipelines can improve performance, their impact on reliability under model variability remains unclear. In real-world deployment, heterogeneous models may align, diverge, or synchronize errors in ways not captured by accuracy. We evaluated 34 LLMs on 169 expert-curated publicly available radiology questions, comparing zero-shot inference with a radiology-specific multi-step agentic retrieval condition in which all models received identical structured evidence reports derived from curated radiology knowledge. Agentic inference reduced inter-model decision dispersion (median entropy 0.48 vs. 0.13) and increased robustness of correctness across models (mean 0.74 vs. 0.81). Majority consensus also increased overall (P<0.001). Consensus strength and robust correctness remained correlated under both strategies (ho=0.88 for zero-shot; ho=0.87 for agentic), although high agreement did not guarantee correctness. Response verbosity showed no meaningful association with correctness. Among 572 incorrect outputs, 72% were associated with moderate or high clinically assessed severity, although inter-rater agreement was low (appa=0.02). Agentic retrieval therefore was associated with more concentrated decision distributions, stronger consensus, and higher cross-model robustness of correctness. These findings suggest that evaluating agentic systems through accuracy or agreement alone may not always be sufficient, and that complementary analyses of stability, cross-model robustness, and potential clinical impact are needed to characterize reliability under model variability.

Large language models increasingly serve as conversational agents that adopt personas and role-play characters at user request. This capability, while valuable, raises concerns about sycophancy: the tendency to provide responses that validate users rather than prioritize factual accuracy. While prior work has established that sycophancy poses risks to AI safety and alignment, the relationship between specific personality traits of adopted personas and the degree of sycophantic behavior remains unexplored. We present a systematic investigation of how persona agreeableness influences sycophancy across 13 small, open-weight language models ranging from 0.6B to 20B parameters. We develop a benchmark comprising 275 personas evaluated on NEO-IPIP agreeableness subscales and expose each persona to 4,950 sycophancy-eliciting prompts spanning 33 topic categories. Our analysis reveals that 9 of 13 models exhibit statistically significant positive correlations between persona agreeableness and sycophancy rates, with Pearson correlations reaching r = 0.87 and effect sizes as large as Cohen's d = 2.33. These findings demonstrate that agreeableness functions as a reliable predictor of persona-induced sycophancy, with direct implications for the deployment of role-playing AI systems and the development of alignment strategies that account for personality-mediated deceptive behaviors.

As large language models (LLMs) become more capable, fine-tuning techniques for aligning with human intent are increasingly important. A key consideration for aligning these models is how to most effectively use human resources, or model resources in the case where LLMs themselves are used as oracles. Reinforcement learning from Human or AI preferences (RLHF/RLAIF) is the most prominent example of such a technique, but is complex and often unstable. Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has recently been proposed as a simpler and more stable alternative. In this work, we develop an active learning strategy for DPO to make better use of preference labels. We propose a practical acquisition function for prompt/completion pairs based on the predictive entropy of the language model and a measure of certainty of the implicit preference model optimized by DPO. We demonstrate how our approach improves both the rate of learning and final performance of fine-tuning on pairwise preference data.

Any-to-any generative models aim to enable seamless interpretation and generation across multiple modalities within a unified framework, yet their ability to preserve relationships across modalities remains uncertain. Do unified models truly achieve cross-modal coherence, or is this coherence merely perceived? To explore this, we introduce ACON, a dataset of 1,000 images (500 newly contributed) paired with captions, editing instructions, and Q&A pairs to evaluate cross-modal transfers rigorously. Using three consistency criteria-cyclic consistency, forward equivariance, and conjugated equivariance-our experiments reveal that any-to-any models do not consistently demonstrate greater cross-modal consistency than specialized models in pointwise evaluations such as cyclic consistency. However, equivariance evaluations uncover weak but observable consistency through structured analyses of the intermediate latent space enabled by multiple editing operations. We release our code and data at https://github.com/JiwanChung/ACON.

Common methods for aligning large language models (LLMs) with desired behaviour heavily rely on human-labelled data. However, as models grow increasingly sophisticated, they will surpass human expertise, and the role of human evaluation will evolve into non-experts overseeing experts. In anticipation of this, we ask: can weaker models assess the correctness of stronger models? We investigate this question in an analogous setting, where stronger models (experts) possess the necessary information to answer questions and weaker models (non-experts) lack this information. The method we evaluate is debate, where two LLM experts each argue for a different answer, and a non-expert selects the answer. We find that debate consistently helps both non-expert models and humans answer questions, achieving 76% and 88% accuracy respectively (naive baselines obtain 48% and 60%). Furthermore, optimising expert debaters for persuasiveness in an unsupervised manner improves non-expert ability to identify the truth in debates. Our results provide encouraging empirical evidence for the viability of aligning models with debate in the absence of ground truth.

We present SimpleQA, a benchmark that evaluates the ability of language models to answer short, fact-seeking questions. We prioritized two properties in designing this eval. First, SimpleQA is challenging, as it is adversarially collected against GPT-4 responses. Second, responses are easy to grade, because questions are created such that there exists only a single, indisputable answer. Each answer in SimpleQA is graded as either correct, incorrect, or not attempted. A model with ideal behavior would get as many questions correct as possible while not attempting the questions for which it is not confident it knows the correct answer. SimpleQA is a simple, targeted evaluation for whether models "know what they know," and our hope is that this benchmark will remain relevant for the next few generations of frontier models. SimpleQA can be found at https://github.com/openai/simple-evals.

Honesty is a fundamental principle for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values, requiring these models to recognize what they know and don't know and be able to faithfully express their knowledge. Despite promising, current LLMs still exhibit significant dishonest behaviors, such as confidently presenting wrong answers or failing to express what they know. In addition, research on the honesty of LLMs also faces challenges, including varying definitions of honesty, difficulties in distinguishing between known and unknown knowledge, and a lack of comprehensive understanding of related research. To address these issues, we provide a survey on the honesty of LLMs, covering its clarification, evaluation approaches, and strategies for improvement. Moreover, we offer insights for future research, aiming to inspire further exploration in this important area.

The advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) for domain applications in fields such as materials science and engineering depends on the development of fine-tuning strategies that adapt models for specialized, technical capabilities. In this work, we explore the effects of Continued Pretraining (CPT), Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), and various preference-based optimization approaches, including Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and Odds Ratio Preference Optimization (ORPO), on fine-tuned LLM performance. Our analysis shows how these strategies influence model outcomes and reveals that the merging of multiple fine-tuned models can lead to the emergence of capabilities that surpass the individual contributions of the parent models. We find that model merging leads to new functionalities that neither parent model could achieve alone, leading to improved performance in domain-specific assessments. Experiments with different model architectures are presented, including Llama 3.1 8B and Mistral 7B models, where similar behaviors are observed. Exploring whether the results hold also for much smaller models, we use a tiny LLM with 1.7 billion parameters and show that very small LLMs do not necessarily feature emergent capabilities under model merging, suggesting that model scaling may be a key component. In open-ended yet consistent chat conversations between a human and AI models, our assessment reveals detailed insights into how different model variants perform and show that the smallest model achieves a high intelligence score across key criteria including reasoning depth, creativity, clarity, and quantitative precision. Other experiments include the development of image generation prompts based on disparate biological material design concepts, to create new microstructures, architectural concepts, and urban design based on biological materials-inspired construction principles.

We present a principled approach to provide LLM-based evaluation with a rigorous guarantee of human agreement. We first propose that a reliable evaluation method should not uncritically rely on model preferences for pairwise evaluation, but rather assess the confidence of judge models and selectively decide when to trust its judgement. We then show that under this selective evaluation framework, human agreement can be provably guaranteed -- such that the model evaluation aligns with that of humans to a user-specified agreement level. As part of our framework, we also introduce Simulated Annotators, a novel confidence estimation method that significantly improves judge calibration and thus enables high coverage of evaluated instances. Finally, we propose Cascaded Selective Evaluation, where we use cheaper models as initial judges and escalate to stronger models only when necessary -- again, while still providing a provable guarantee of human agreement. Experimental results show that Cascaded Selective Evaluation guarantees strong alignment with humans, far beyond what LLM judges could achieve without selective evaluation. For example, on a subset of Chatbot Arena where GPT-4 almost never achieves 80% human agreement, our method, even while employing substantially cost-effective models such as Mistral-7B, guarantees over 80% human agreement with almost 80% test coverage.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown exceptional results on current benchmarks when working individually. The advancement in their capabilities, along with a reduction in parameter size and inference times, has facilitated the use of these models as agents, enabling interactions among multiple models to execute complex tasks. Such collaborations offer several advantages, including the use of specialized models (e.g. coding), improved confidence through multiple computations, and enhanced divergent thinking, leading to more diverse outputs. Thus, the collaborative use of language models is expected to grow significantly in the coming years. In this work, we evaluate the behavior of a network of models collaborating through debate under the influence of an adversary. We introduce pertinent metrics to assess the adversary's effectiveness, focusing on system accuracy and model agreement. Our findings highlight the importance of a model's persuasive ability in influencing others. Additionally, we explore inference-time methods to generate more compelling arguments and evaluate the potential of prompt-based mitigation as a defensive strategy.

We propose patching for large language models (LLMs) like software versions, a lightweight and modular approach for addressing safety vulnerabilities. While vendors release improved LLM versions, major releases are costly, infrequent, and difficult to tailor to customer needs, leaving released models with known safety gaps. Unlike full-model fine-tuning or major version updates, our method enables rapid remediation by prepending a compact, learnable prefix to an existing model. This "patch" introduces only 0.003% additional parameters, yet reliably steers model behavior toward that of a safer reference model. Across three critical domains (toxicity mitigation, bias reduction, and harmfulness refusal) policy patches achieve safety improvements comparable to next-generation safety-aligned models while preserving fluency. Our results demonstrate that LLMs can be "patched" much like software, offering vendors and practitioners a practical mechanism for distributing scalable, efficient, and composable safety updates between major model releases.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in empirical software engineering (ESE) to automate or assist annotation tasks such as labeling commits, issues, and qualitative artifacts. Yet the reliability and reproducibility of such annotations remain underexplored. Existing studies often lack standardized measures for reliability, calibration, and drift, and frequently omit essential configuration details. We argue that LLM-based annotation should be treated as a measurement process rather than a purely automated activity. In this position paper, we outline the Operationalization for LLM-based Annotation Framework (OLAF), a conceptual framework that organizes key constructs: reliability, calibration, drift, consensus, aggregation, and transparency. The paper aims to motivate methodological discussion and future empirical work toward more transparent and reproducible LLM-based annotation in software engineering research.

Language model alignment research often attempts to ensure that models are not only helpful and harmless, but also truthful and unbiased. However, optimizing these objectives simultaneously can obscure how improving one aspect might impact the others. In this work, we focus on analyzing the relationship between two concepts essential in both language model alignment and political science: truthfulness and political bias. We train reward models on various popular truthfulness datasets and subsequently evaluate their political bias. Our findings reveal that optimizing reward models for truthfulness on these datasets tends to result in a left-leaning political bias. We also find that existing open-source reward models (i.e. those trained on standard human preference datasets) already show a similar bias and that the bias is larger for larger models. These results raise important questions about both the datasets used to represent truthfulness and what language models capture about the relationship between truth and politics.

Large Language Models (LLMs) aim to serve as versatile assistants aligned with human values, as defined by the principles of being helpful, honest, and harmless (hhh). However, in terms of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), despite their commendable performance in perception and reasoning tasks, their alignment with human values remains largely unexplored, given the complexity of defining hhh dimensions in the visual world and the difficulty in collecting relevant data that accurately mirrors real-world situations. To address this gap, we introduce Ch3Ef, a Compreh3ensive Evaluation dataset and strategy for assessing alignment with human expectations. Ch3Ef dataset contains 1002 human-annotated data samples, covering 12 domains and 46 tasks based on the hhh principle. We also present a unified evaluation strategy supporting assessment across various scenarios and different perspectives. Based on the evaluation results, we summarize over 10 key findings that deepen the understanding of MLLM capabilities, limitations, and the dynamic relationships between evaluation levels, guiding future advancements in the field.

We introduce an approach to evaluate language model (LM) agency using negotiation games. This approach better reflects real-world use cases and addresses some of the shortcomings of alternative LM benchmarks. Negotiation games enable us to study multi-turn, and cross-model interactions, modulate complexity, and side-step accidental evaluation data leakage. We use our approach to test six widely used and publicly accessible LMs, evaluating performance and alignment in both self-play and cross-play settings. Noteworthy findings include: (i) only closed-source models tested here were able to complete these tasks; (ii) cooperative bargaining games proved to be most challenging to the models; and (iii) even the most powerful models sometimes "lose" to weaker opponents

The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) across various regions underscores the urgent need to evaluate their alignment with human values. Current benchmarks, however, fall short of effectively uncovering safety vulnerabilities in LLMs. Despite numerous models achieving high scores and 'topping the chart' in these evaluations, there is still a significant gap in LLMs' deeper alignment with human values and achieving genuine harmlessness. To this end, this paper proposes a value alignment benchmark named Flames, which encompasses both common harmlessness principles and a unique morality dimension that integrates specific Chinese values such as harmony. Accordingly, we carefully design adversarial prompts that incorporate complex scenarios and jailbreaking methods, mostly with implicit malice. By prompting 17 mainstream LLMs, we obtain model responses and rigorously annotate them for detailed evaluation. Our findings indicate that all the evaluated LLMs demonstrate relatively poor performance on Flames, particularly in the safety and fairness dimensions. We also develop a lightweight specified scorer capable of scoring LLMs across multiple dimensions to efficiently evaluate new models on the benchmark. The complexity of Flames has far exceeded existing benchmarks, setting a new challenge for contemporary LLMs and highlighting the need for further alignment of LLMs. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/AIFlames/Flames.

The alignment of large language models is usually done by model providers to add or control behaviors that are common or universally understood across use cases and contexts. In contrast, in this article, we present an approach and architecture that empowers application developers to tune a model to their particular values, social norms, laws and other regulations, and orchestrate between potentially conflicting requirements in context. We lay out three main components of such an Alignment Studio architecture: Framers, Instructors, and Auditors that work in concert to control the behavior of a language model. We illustrate this approach with a running example of aligning a company's internal-facing enterprise chatbot to its business conduct guidelines.

As large language models (LLMs) grow more powerful, concerns around potential harms like toxicity, unfairness, and hallucination threaten user trust. Ensuring beneficial alignment of LLMs with human values through model alignment is thus critical yet challenging, requiring a deeper understanding of LLM behaviors and mechanisms. We propose opening the black box of LLMs through a framework of holistic interpretability encompassing complementary bottom-up and top-down perspectives. The bottom-up view, enabled by mechanistic interpretability, focuses on component functionalities and training dynamics. The top-down view utilizes representation engineering to analyze behaviors through hidden representations. In this paper, we review the landscape around mechanistic interpretability and representation engineering, summarizing approaches, discussing limitations and applications, and outlining future challenges in using these techniques to achieve ethical, honest, and reliable reasoning aligned with human values.

Rigorous and reproducible evaluation is critical for assessing the state of the art and for guiding scientific advances in Artificial Intelligence. Evaluation is challenging in practice due to several reasons, including benchmark saturation, lack of transparency in methods used for measurement, development challenges in extracting measurements for generative tasks, and, more generally, the extensive number of capabilities required for a well-rounded comparison across models. We make three contributions to alleviate the above challenges. First, we present Eureka, an open-source framework for standardizing evaluations of large foundation models beyond single-score reporting and rankings. Second, we introduce Eureka-Bench as an extensible collection of benchmarks testing capabilities that (i) are still challenging for state-of-the-art models and (ii) represent fundamental but overlooked language and multimodal capabilities. The inherent space for improvement in non-saturated benchmarks enables us to discover meaningful differences between models at a capability level. Third, using Eureka, we conduct an analysis of 12 state-of-the-art models, providing in-depth insights into failure understanding and model comparison, which can be leveraged to plan targeted improvements. In contrast to recent trends in reports and leaderboards showing absolute rankings and claims for one model or another to be the best, our analysis shows that there is no such best model. Different models have different strengths, but there are models that appear more often than others as best performers for some capabilities. Despite the recent improvements, current models still struggle with several fundamental capabilities including detailed image understanding, benefiting from multimodal input when available rather than fully relying on language, factuality and grounding for information retrieval, and over refusals.

In this study, we investigate how language models develop preferences for idiomatic as compared to linguistically acceptable Swedish, both during pretraining and when adapting a model from English to Swedish. To do so, we train models on Swedish from scratch and by fine-tuning English-pretrained models, probing their preferences at various checkpoints using minimal pairs that differ in linguistic acceptability or idiomaticity. For linguistic acceptability, we adapt existing benchmarks into a minimal-pair format. To assess idiomaticity, we introduce two novel datasets: one contrasting conventionalized idioms with plausible variants, and another contrasting idiomatic Swedish with Translationese. Our findings suggest that idiomatic competence emerges more slowly than other linguistic abilities, including grammatical and lexical correctness. While longer training yields diminishing returns for most tasks, idiom-related performance continues to improve, particularly in the largest model tested (8B). However, instruction tuning on data machine-translated from English -- the common approach for languages with little or no native instruction data -- causes models to rapidly lose their preference for idiomatic language.

Organizations typically train large models individually. This is costly and time-consuming, particularly for large-scale foundation models. Such vertical production is known to be suboptimal. Inspired by this economic insight, we ask whether it is possible to leverage others' expertise by trading the constituent parts in models, i.e., sets of weights, as if they were market commodities. While recent advances in aligning and interpolating models suggest that doing so may be possible, a number of fundamental questions must be answered to create viable parameter markets. In this work, we address these basic questions, propose a framework containing the infrastructure necessary for market operations to take place, study strategies for exchanging parameters, and offer means for agents to monetize parameters. Excitingly, compared to agents who train siloed models from scratch, we show that it is possible to mutually gain by using the market, even in competitive settings. This suggests that the notion of parameter markets may be a useful paradigm for improving large-scale model training in the future.

Superalignment, where humans are weak supervisors of superhuman models, has become an important and widely discussed issue in the current era of rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs). The recent work preliminarily studies this problem by using weak models to supervise strong models. It discovers that weakly supervised strong students can consistently outperform weak teachers towards the alignment target, leading to a weak-to-strong generalization phenomenon. However, we are concerned that behind such a promising phenomenon, whether there exists an issue of weak-to-strong deception, where strong models may deceive weak models by exhibiting well-aligned in areas known to weak models but producing misaligned behaviors in cases weak models do not know. We then take an initial step towards exploring this security issue in a specific but realistic multi-objective alignment case, where there may be some alignment targets conflicting with each other (e.g., helpfulness v.s. harmlessness). Such a conflict is likely to cause strong models to deceive weak models in one alignment dimension to gain high reward in other alignment dimension. Our experiments on both the reward modeling task and the preference optimization scenario indicate: (1) the weak-to-strong deception exists; (2) the deception phenomenon may intensify as the capability gap between weak and strong models increases. We also discuss potential solutions and find bootstrapping with an intermediate model can mitigate the deception to some extent. Our work highlights the urgent need to pay more attention to the true reliability of superalignment.

Recent advancements in Language Models (LMs) have catalyzed the creation of multiple benchmarks, designed to assess these models' general capabilities. A crucial task, however, is assessing the validity of the benchmarks themselves. This is most commonly done via Benchmark Agreement Testing (BAT), where new benchmarks are validated against established ones using some agreement metric (e.g., rank correlation). Despite the crucial role of BAT for benchmark builders and consumers, there are no standardized procedures for such agreement testing. This deficiency can lead to invalid conclusions, fostering mistrust in benchmarks and upending the ability to properly choose the appropriate benchmark to use. By analyzing over 40 prominent benchmarks, we demonstrate how some overlooked methodological choices can significantly influence BAT results, potentially undermining the validity of conclusions. To address these inconsistencies, we propose a set of best practices for BAT and demonstrate how utilizing these methodologies greatly improves BAT robustness and validity. To foster adoption and facilitate future research,, we introduce BenchBench, a python package for BAT, and release the BenchBench-leaderboard, a meta-benchmark designed to evaluate benchmarks using their peers. Our findings underscore the necessity for standardized BAT, ensuring the robustness and validity of benchmark evaluations in the evolving landscape of language model research. BenchBench Package: https://github.com/IBM/BenchBench Leaderboard: https://huggingface.co/spaces/per/BenchBench

Learning-rate steps are usually treated as hyperparameters. This paper isolates a local beliefspace calculation: when an update is modeled as a projected forward step on the probability simplex, admissibility means contractivity in the natural KL/Bregman geometry. Under this model, the upper bound of an admissible step is not a tuning slogan but a formula.

Although the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) ideally scale up with increasing data and compute, they are inevitably constrained by limited resources in reality. Suppose we have a moderately trained LLM (e.g., trained to align with human preference) in hand, can we further exploit its potential and cheaply acquire a stronger model? In this paper, we propose a simple method called ExPO to boost LLMs' alignment with human preference. ExPO assumes that a medium-aligned model can be interpolated between a less-aligned (weaker) model, e.g., the initial SFT model, and a better-aligned (stronger) one, thereby directly obtaining this stronger model by extrapolating from the weights of the former two relatively weaker models. On the AlpacaEval 2.0 benchmark, we show that ExPO pushes models trained with less preference data (e.g., 10% or 20%) to reach and even surpass the fully-trained one, without any additional training. Furthermore, ExPO also significantly improves off-the-shelf DPO/RLHF models and exhibits decent scalability across model sizes from 7B to 70B. Our work demonstrates the efficacy of model extrapolation in exploiting LLMs' capabilities, suggesting a promising direction that deserves future exploration.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into various global cultures fundamentally presents a cultural challenge: LLMs must navigate interactions, respect social norms, and avoid transgressing cultural boundaries. However, it is still unclear if LLMs can adapt their outputs to diverse cultural norms. Our study focuses on this aspect. We introduce NormAd, a novel dataset, which includes 2.6k stories that represent social and cultural norms from 75 countries, to assess the ability of LLMs to adapt to different granular levels of socio-cultural contexts such as the country of origin, its associated cultural values, and prevalent social norms. Our study reveals that LLMs struggle with cultural reasoning across all contextual granularities, showing stronger adaptability to English-centric cultures over those from the Global South. Even with explicit social norms, the top-performing model, Mistral-7b-Instruct, achieves only 81.8\% accuracy, lagging behind the 95.6\% achieved by humans. Evaluation on NormAd further reveals that LLMs struggle to adapt to stories involving gift-giving across cultures. Due to inherent agreement or sycophancy biases, LLMs find it considerably easier to assess the social acceptability of stories that adhere to cultural norms than those that deviate from them. Our benchmark measures the cultural adaptability (or lack thereof) of LLMs, emphasizing the potential to make these technologies more equitable and useful for global audiences. We release the NormAd dataset and its associated code on GitHub.

The research explores the steerability of Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly OpenAI's ChatGPT iterations. By employing a behavioral psychology framework called OCEAN (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism), we quantitatively gauged the model's responsiveness to tailored prompts. When asked to generate text mimicking an extroverted personality, OCEAN scored the language alignment to that behavioral trait. In our analysis, while "openness" presented linguistic ambiguity, "conscientiousness" and "neuroticism" were distinctly evoked in the OCEAN framework, with "extroversion" and "agreeableness" showcasing a notable overlap yet distinct separation from other traits. Our findings underscore GPT's versatility and ability to discern and adapt to nuanced instructions. Furthermore, historical figure simulations highlighted the LLM's capacity to internalize and project instructible personas, precisely replicating their philosophies and dialogic styles. However, the rapid advancements in LLM capabilities and the opaque nature of some training techniques make metric proposals degrade rapidly. Our research emphasizes a quantitative role to describe steerability in LLMs, presenting both its promise and areas for further refinement in aligning its progress to human intentions.

Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificiality of current evaluations: real users do not typically ask LLMs survey questions. Motivated by this discrepancy, we challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in LLMs and explore more realistic unconstrained evaluations. As a case study, we focus on the popular Political Compass Test (PCT). In a systematic review, we find that most prior work using the PCT forces models to comply with the PCT's multiple-choice format. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced; that answers change depending on how models are forced; and that answers lack paraphrase robustness. Then, we demonstrate that models give different answers yet again in a more realistic open-ended answer setting. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.

Scaling laws predict loss from compute but not how capabilities interact. We measure the coupling between reasoning and truthfulness across 63 base models from 16 families and find a regime change invisible to loss curves: below a family-dependent critical scale N_c, capabilities anticorrelate; above it, they cooperate. N_c approx 3.5B parameters [2.9B, 13.4B] (bootstrap 95% CI), but model size is not the only variable that determines phase. Architecture, data curation, and training recipe each shift N_c independently: curated training eliminated the coupling dip between Qwen generations (0.025 to 0.830 at matched scale), Gemma-4 at 4B achieves coupling 0.871, characteristic of 13B+ standard-trained models, through distillation and architectural innovation, and Phi at 1B matches web-trained coupling at 10B through data curation alone. Width normalization eliminates the anticorrelation across all tested families, supporting an output-projection bottleneck. Internally, 38 of 40 models show zero competing attention heads. A sparse-regression ODE cross-predicts held-out Llama-2 at 5.6% error. The diagnostic requires no model internals -- only public benchmark scores across a model family. The cooperative regime extends to the frontier (r = +0.72, 34 models, 10 labs). Code, data, and an open-source activation-steering tool for any open-weight model are released alongside an interactive dashboard that diagnoses any model's coupling phase, suggests concrete interventions (data curation, width, benchmark rotation), and provides ODE scaling predictions, frontier diagnostics, and eigenstructure analysis: https://zehenlabs.com/cape/.

Inference-time alignment provides an efficient alternative for aligning LLMs with humans. However, these approaches still face challenges, such as limited scalability due to policy-specific value functions and latency during the inference phase. In this paper, we propose a novel approach, Diffusion-styled Preference Optimization (\model), which provides an efficient and policy-agnostic solution for aligning LLMs with humans. By directly performing alignment at sentence level, \model~avoids the time latency associated with token-level generation. Designed as a plug-and-play module, \model~can be seamlessly integrated with various base models to enhance their alignment. Extensive experiments on AlpacaEval 2, MT-bench, and HH-RLHF demonstrate that \model~achieves superior alignment performance across various settings, achieving a favorable trade-off between alignment quality and inference-time latency. Furthermore, \model~demonstrates model-agnostic scalability, significantly improving the performance of large models such as Llama-3-70B.

While large language models (LLMs) have proven to be effective on a large variety of tasks, they are also known to hallucinate information. To measure whether an LLM prefers factually consistent continuations of its input, we propose a new benchmark called FIB(Factual Inconsistency Benchmark) that focuses on the task of summarization. Specifically, our benchmark involves comparing the scores an LLM assigns to a factually consistent versus a factually inconsistent summary for an input news article. For factually consistent summaries, we use human-written reference summaries that we manually verify as factually consistent. To generate summaries that are factually inconsistent, we generate summaries from a suite of summarization models that we have manually annotated as factually inconsistent. A model's factual consistency is then measured according to its accuracy, i.e.\ the proportion of documents where it assigns a higher score to the factually consistent summary. To validate the usefulness of FIB, we evaluate 23 large language models ranging from 1B to 176B parameters from six different model families including BLOOM and OPT. We find that existing LLMs generally assign a higher score to factually consistent summaries than to factually inconsistent summaries. However, if the factually inconsistent summaries occur verbatim in the document, then LLMs assign a higher score to these factually inconsistent summaries than factually consistent summaries. We validate design choices in our benchmark including the scoring method and source of distractor summaries. Our code and benchmark data can be found at https://github.com/r-three/fib.

Learning compatible representations aims to learn feature representations that can be used interchangeably over time whenever a model undergoes updates. In this paper, we demonstrate that stationary representations learned by d-Simplex fixed classifiers imply compatibility as in its formal definition. This result establishes a foundation for future works and can be directly exploited in practical learning scenarios. We address the challenge of learning compatibility using d-Simplex fixed classifiers when the model is sequentially fine-tuned. Learning according to a d-Simplex fixed classifier with the cross-entropy loss aligns feature distributions at the first-order statistics. Consequently, it may not fully capture higher-order dependencies in the representation between model updates. To address this issue, we demonstrate that training the model using a d-Simplex fixed classifier through a convex combination of the cross-entropy loss and a contrastive loss not only captures higher-order dependencies, but is also equivalent to learning with the cross-entropy under the compatibility constraints. We confirm our findings with extensive experiments also considering a new scenario where a pre-trained model is sequentially fine-tuned and occasionally replaced with an improved model. We show that stationary representations enable uninterrupted retrieval services (without reprocessing gallery images) while improving performance during model updates and replacements, achieving state-of-the-art. Code at https://github.com/miccunifi/iamcl2r.

Large language models (LLMs) are typically aligned to a universal set of safety and usage principles intended for broad public acceptability. Yet, real-world applications of LLMs often take place within organizational ecosystems shaped by distinctive corporate policies, regulatory requirements, use cases, brand guidelines, and ethical commitments. This reality highlights the need for rigorous and comprehensive evaluation of LLMs with pluralistic alignment goals, an alignment paradigm that emphasizes adaptability to diverse user values and needs. In this work, we present PLURALISTIC BEHAVIOR SUITE (PBSUITE), a dynamic evaluation suite designed to systematically assess LLMs' capacity to adhere to pluralistic alignment specifications in multi-turn, interactive conversations. PBSUITE consists of (1) a diverse dataset of 300 realistic LLM behavioral policies, grounded in 30 industries; and (2) a dynamic evaluation framework for stress-testing model compliance with custom behavioral specifications under adversarial conditions. Using PBSUITE, We find that leading open- and closed-source LLMs maintain robust adherence to behavioral policies in single-turn settings (less than 4% failure rates), but their compliance weakens substantially in multi-turn adversarial interactions (up to 84% failure rates). These findings highlight that existing model alignment and safety moderation methods fall short in coherently enforcing pluralistic behavioral policies in real-world LLM interactions. Our work contributes both the dataset and analytical framework to support future research toward robust and context-aware pluralistic alignment techniques.

The dominant practice of AI alignment assumes (1) that preferences are an adequate representation of human values, (2) that human rationality can be understood in terms of maximizing the satisfaction of preferences, and (3) that AI systems should be aligned with the preferences of one or more humans to ensure that they behave safely and in accordance with our values. Whether implicitly followed or explicitly endorsed, these commitments constitute what we term a preferentist approach to AI alignment. In this paper, we characterize and challenge the preferentist approach, describing conceptual and technical alternatives that are ripe for further research. We first survey the limits of rational choice theory as a descriptive model, explaining how preferences fail to capture the thick semantic content of human values, and how utility representations neglect the possible incommensurability of those values. We then critique the normativity of expected utility theory (EUT) for humans and AI, drawing upon arguments showing how rational agents need not comply with EUT, while highlighting how EUT is silent on which preferences are normatively acceptable. Finally, we argue that these limitations motivate a reframing of the targets of AI alignment: Instead of alignment with the preferences of a human user, developer, or humanity-writ-large, AI systems should be aligned with normative standards appropriate to their social roles, such as the role of a general-purpose assistant. Furthermore, these standards should be negotiated and agreed upon by all relevant stakeholders. On this alternative conception of alignment, a multiplicity of AI systems will be able to serve diverse ends, aligned with normative standards that promote mutual benefit and limit harm despite our plural and divergent values.

This large scale study focuses on quantifying what X-rays diagnostic prediction tasks generalize well across multiple different datasets. We present evidence that the issue of generalization is not due to a shift in the images but instead a shift in the labels. We study the cross-domain performance, agreement between models, and model representations. We find interesting discrepancies between performance and agreement where models which both achieve good performance disagree in their predictions as well as models which agree yet achieve poor performance. We also test for concept similarity by regularizing a network to group tasks across multiple datasets together and observe variation across the tasks. All code is made available online and data is publicly available: https://github.com/mlmed/torchxrayvision

The alignment of large language models (LLMs) often assumes that using more clean data yields better outcomes, overlooking the match between model capacity and example difficulty. Challenging this, we propose a new principle: Preference data vary in difficulty, and overly difficult examples hinder alignment, by exceeding the model's capacity. Through systematic experimentation, we validate this principle with three key findings: (1) preference examples vary in difficulty, as evidenced by consistent learning orders across alignment runs; (2) overly difficult examples significantly degrade performance across four LLMs and two datasets; and (3) the capacity of a model dictates its threshold for handling difficult examples, underscoring a critical relationship between data selection and model capacity. Building on this principle, we introduce Selective DPO, which filters out overly difficult examples. This simple adjustment improves alignment performance by 9-16% in win rates on the AlpacaEval 2 benchmark compared to the DPO baseline, suppressing a series of DPO variants with different algorithmic adjustments. Together, these results illuminate the importance of aligning data difficulty with model capacity, offering a transformative perspective for improving alignment strategies in LLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/glorgao/SelectiveDPO.

The democratization of machine learning systems has made the process of fine-tuning accessible to practitioners, leading to a wide range of open-source models fine-tuned on specialized tasks and datasets. Recent work has proposed to merge such models to combine their functionalities. However, prior approaches are usually restricted to models that are fine-tuned from the same base model. Furthermore, the final merged model is typically required to be of the same size as the original models. In this work, we propose a new two-step algorithm to merge models -- termed PLeaS -- which relaxes these constraints. First, leveraging the Permutation symmetries inherent in the two models, PLeaS partially matches nodes in each layer by maximizing alignment. Next, PLeaS computes the weights of the merged model as a layer-wise Least Squares solution to minimize the approximation error between the features of the merged model and the permuted features of the original models. PLeaS allows a practitioner to merge two models sharing the same architecture into a single performant model of a desired size, even when the two original models are fine-tuned from different base models. We also demonstrate how our method can be extended to address a challenging scenario where no data is available from the fine-tuning domains. We demonstrate our method to merge ResNet and ViT models trained with shared and different label spaces, and show improvement over the state-of-the-art merging methods of up to 15 percentage points for the same target compute while merging models trained on DomainNet and fine-grained classification tasks. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/SewoongLab/PLeaS-Merging .

Recent work on chain-of-thought (CoT) faithfulness reports single aggregate numbers (e.g., DeepSeek-R1 acknowledges hints 39% of the time), implying that faithfulness is an objective, measurable property of a model. This paper demonstrates that it is not. Three classifiers (a regex-only detector, a two-stage regex-plus-LLM pipeline, and an independent Claude Sonnet 4 judge) are applied to 10,276 influenced reasoning traces from 12 open-weight models spanning 9 families and 7B to 1T parameters. On identical data, these classifiers produce overall faithfulness rates of 74.4%, 82.6%, and 69.7%, respectively, with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Per-model gaps range from 2.6 to 30.6 percentage points; all are statistically significant (McNemar's test, p < 0.001). The disagreements are systematic, not random: inter-classifier agreement measured by Cohen's kappa ranges from 0.06 ("slight") for sycophancy hints to 0.42 ("moderate") for grader hints, and the asymmetry is pronounced: for sycophancy, 883 cases are classified as faithful by the pipeline but unfaithful by the Sonnet judge, while only 2 go the other direction. Classifier choice can also reverse model rankings: Qwen3.5-27B ranks 1st under the pipeline but 7th under the Sonnet judge; OLMo-3.1-32B moves in the opposite direction, from 9th to 3rd. The root cause is that different classifiers operationalize related faithfulness constructs at different levels of stringency (lexical mention versus epistemic dependence), and these constructs yield divergent measurements on the same behavior. These results demonstrate that published faithfulness numbers cannot be meaningfully compared across studies that use different classifiers, and that future evaluations should report sensitivity ranges across multiple classification methodologies rather than single point estimates.

Despite notable advancements in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), most state-of-the-art models have not undergone thorough alignment with human preferences. This gap exists because current alignment research has primarily achieved progress in specific areas (e.g., hallucination reduction), while the broader question of whether aligning models with human preferences can systematically enhance MLLM capability remains largely unexplored. To this end, we introduce MM-RLHF, a dataset containing 120k fine-grained, human-annotated preference comparison pairs. This dataset represents a substantial advancement over existing resources, offering superior size, diversity, annotation granularity, and quality. Leveraging this dataset, we propose several key innovations to improve both the quality of reward models and the efficiency of alignment algorithms. Notably, we introduce a Critique-Based Reward Model, which generates critiques of model outputs before assigning scores, offering enhanced interpretability and more informative feedback compared to traditional scalar reward mechanisms. Additionally, we propose Dynamic Reward Scaling, a method that adjusts the loss weight of each sample according to the reward signal, thereby optimizing the use of high-quality comparison pairs. Our approach is rigorously evaluated across 10 distinct dimensions and 27 benchmarks, with results demonstrating significant and consistent improvements in model performance. Specifically, fine-tuning LLaVA-ov-7B with MM-RLHF and our alignment algorithm leads to a 19.5% increase in conversational abilities and a 60% improvement in safety. We have open-sourced the preference dataset, reward model, training and evaluation code, as well as reward modeling and safety benchmarks. For more details, please visit our project page: https://mm-rlhf.github.io.

Critical thinking is essential for rational decision-making and problem-solving. This skill hinges on the ability to provide precise and reasoned critiques and is a hallmark of human intelligence. In the era of large language models (LLMs), this study explores the ability of LLMs to deliver accurate critiques across various tasks. We are interested in this topic as a capable critic model could not only serve as a reliable evaluator, but also as a source of supervised signals for model tuning. Particularly, if a model can self-critique, it has the potential for autonomous self-improvement. To examine this, we introduce a unified evaluation framework for assessing the critique abilities of LLMs. We develop a benchmark called CriticBench, which comprises 3K high-quality natural language queries and corresponding model responses; and annotate the correctness of these responses. The benchmark cover tasks such as math problem-solving, code completion, and question answering. We evaluate multiple LLMs on the collected dataset and our analysis reveals several noteworthy insights: (1) Critique is generally challenging for most LLMs, and this capability often emerges only when models are sufficiently large. (2) In particular, self-critique is especially difficult. Even top-performing LLMs struggle to achieve satisfactory performance. (3) Models tend to have lower critique accuracy on problems where they are most uncertain. To this end, we introduce a simple yet effective baseline named self-check, which leverages self-critique to improve task performance for various models. We hope this study serves as an initial exploration into understanding the critique abilities of LLMs, and aims to inform future research, including the development of more proficient critic models and the application of critiques across diverse tasks.

Current approaches to AI compliance treat conformity as a binary, audit-time verdict rather than a continuous, measurable property of production systems. We argue that this compliance fiction is structurally ill-suited to the requirements of the EU AI Act, which demands ongoing human oversight and the detection of emergent behavioural drift in deployed systems. We introduce governance from metrics, a principle whereby regulatory compliance is derived as a continuous signal from runtime observability rather than from static assessments. Building on this principle, we present govllm, an open-source framework implementing a governance-driven routing architecture in which model selection is determined by accumulated compliance scores rather than by latency or cost alone. Central to our approach is a panel of regulatory judges - LLM evaluators specialised per criterion (EU AI Act, GDPR, ANSSI, accessibility) - whose inter-judge disagreement we reframe not as noise but as a regulatory uncertainty signal warranting human arbitration. We validate this approach through a ground truth corpus of 49 annotated prompt/response pairs across five regulatory criteria, evaluated by four small language models (SLMs, 1.7B-7B parameters) running fully on-premise. Agreement rates range from 51.5% (mistral:7b) to 69.1% (phi4-mini), with no single model dominating across all criteria - empirically motivating the Profile-as-jury design. We further document three structural failure modes in small regulatory judges and a judge-specific position bias that degrades agreement by up to 25 percentage points across three question-order conditions (original, reversed, permuted). govllm is released as open-source software to support reproducible AI governance research.

Reliable application of machine learning is of primary importance to the practical deployment of deep learning methods. A fundamental challenge is that models are often unreliable due to overconfidence. In this paper, we estimate a model's reliability by measuring the agreement between its latent space, and the latent space of a foundation model. However, it is challenging to measure the agreement between two different latent spaces due to their incoherence, \eg, arbitrary rotations and different dimensionality. To overcome this incoherence issue, we design a neighborhood agreement measure between latent spaces and find that this agreement is surprisingly well-correlated with the reliability of a model's predictions. Further, we show that fusing neighborhood agreement into a model's predictive confidence in a post-hoc way significantly improves its reliability. Theoretical analysis and extensive experiments on failure detection across various datasets verify the effectiveness of our method on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become central in academia and industry, raising concerns about privacy, transparency, and misuse. A key issue is the trustworthiness of proprietary models, with open-sourcing often proposed as a solution. However, open-sourcing presents challenges, including potential misuse, financial disincentives, and intellectual property concerns. Proprietary models, backed by private sector resources, are better positioned for return on investment. There are also other approaches that lie somewhere on the spectrum between completely open-source and proprietary. These can largely be categorised into open-source usage limitations protected by licensing, partially open-source (open weights) models, hybrid approaches where obsolete model versions are open-sourced, while competitive versions with market value remain proprietary. Currently, discussions on where on the spectrum future models should fall on remains unbacked and mostly opinionated where industry leaders are weighing in on the discussion. In this paper, we present a data-driven approach by compiling data on open-source development of LLMs, and their contributions in terms of improvements, modifications, and methods. Our goal is to avoid supporting either extreme but rather present data that will support future discussions both by industry experts as well as policy makers. Our findings indicate that open-source contributions can enhance model performance, with trends such as reduced model size and manageable accuracy loss. We also identify positive community engagement patterns and architectures that benefit most from open contributions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in general natural language processing tasks but often fall short in complex reasoning tasks. Recent studies have explored human-like problem-solving strategies, such as self-correct, to push further the boundary of single-model reasoning ability. In this work, we let a single model "step outside the box" by engaging multiple models to correct each other. We introduce a multi-agent collaboration strategy that emulates the academic peer review process. Each agent independently constructs its own solution, provides reviews on the solutions of others, and assigns confidence levels to its reviews. Upon receiving peer reviews, agents revise their initial solutions. Extensive experiments on three different types of reasoning tasks show that our collaboration approach delivers superior accuracy across all ten datasets compared to existing methods. Further study underscores the effectiveness of integrating confidence in reviews, demonstrates the superiority of feedback exchange over mere solution sharing, and highlights the role of capability and diversity in fostering successful collaboration.

We introduce StableLM 2 1.6B, the first in a new generation of our language model series. In this technical report, we present in detail the data and training procedure leading to the base and instruction-tuned versions of StableLM 2 1.6B. The weights for both models are available via Hugging Face for anyone to download and use. The report contains thorough evaluations of these models, including zero- and few-shot benchmarks, multilingual benchmarks, and the MT benchmark focusing on multi-turn dialogues. At the time of publishing this report, StableLM 2 1.6B was the state-of-the-art open model under 2B parameters by a significant margin. Given its appealing small size, we also provide throughput measurements on a number of edge devices. In addition, we open source several quantized checkpoints and provide their performance metrics compared to the original model.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) outputs let us read a model's step-by-step reasoning. Since any long, serial reasoning process must pass through this textual trace, the quality of the CoT is a direct window into what the model is thinking. This visibility could help us spot unsafe or misaligned behavior (monitorability), but only if the CoT is transparent about its internal reasoning (faithfulness). Fully measuring faithfulness is difficult, so researchers often focus on examining the CoT in cases where the model changes its answer after adding a cue to the input. This proxy finds some instances of unfaithfulness but loses information when the model maintains its answer, and does not investigate aspects of reasoning not tied to the cue. We extend these results to a more holistic sense of monitorability by introducing verbosity: whether the CoT lists every factor needed to solve the task. We combine faithfulness and verbosity into a single monitorability score that shows how well the CoT serves as the model's external `working memory', a property that many safety schemes based on CoT monitoring depend on. We evaluate instruction-tuned and reasoning models on BBH, GPQA, and MMLU. Our results show that models can appear faithful yet remain hard to monitor when they leave out key factors, and that monitorability differs sharply across model families. We release our evaluation code using the Inspect library to support reproducible future work.

The surprising ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform well on complex reasoning with only few-shot chain-of-thought prompts is believed to emerge only in very large-scale models (100+ billion parameters). We show that such abilities can, in fact, be distilled down from GPT-3.5 (ge 175B) to T5 variants (le 11B). We propose model specialization, to specialize the model's ability towards a target task. The hypothesis is that large models (commonly viewed as larger than 100B) have strong modeling power, but are spread on a large spectrum of tasks. Small models (commonly viewed as smaller than 10B) have limited model capacity, but if we concentrate their capacity on a specific target task, the model can achieve a decent improved performance. We use multi-step math reasoning as our testbed because it is a very typical emergent ability. We show two important aspects of model abilities: (1). there exists a very complex balance/ tradeoff between language models' multi-dimensional abilities; (2). by paying the price of decreased generic ability, we can clearly lift up the scaling curve of models smaller than 10B towards a specialized multi-step math reasoning ability. We further give comprehensive discussions about important design choices for better generalization, including the tuning data format, the start model checkpoint, and a new model selection method. We hope our practice and discoveries can serve as an important attempt towards specialized smaller models in the new research paradigm set by LLMs.

We introduce CheckEval, a novel evaluation framework using Large Language Models, addressing the challenges of ambiguity and inconsistency in current evaluation methods. CheckEval addresses these challenges by dividing evaluation criteria into detailed sub-aspects and constructing a checklist of Boolean questions for each, simplifying the evaluation. This approach not only renders the process more interpretable but also significantly enhances the robustness and reliability of results by focusing on specific evaluation dimensions. Validated through a focused case study using the SummEval benchmark, CheckEval indicates a strong correlation with human judgments. Furthermore, it demonstrates a highly consistent Inter-Annotator Agreement. These findings highlight the effectiveness of CheckEval for objective, flexible, and precise evaluations. By offering a customizable and interactive framework, CheckEval sets a new standard for the use of LLMs in evaluation, responding to the evolving needs of the field and establishing a clear method for future LLM-based evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated human-like instruction-following abilities, particularly those exceeding 100 billion parameters. The combined capability of some smaller, resource-friendly LLMs can address most of the instructions that larger LLMs excel at. In this work, we explore how to route the best-performing LLM for each instruction to achieve better overall performance. We develop a new paradigm, constructing capability instructions with model capability representation, user instruction, and performance inquiry prompts to assess the performance. To learn from capability instructions, we introduce a new end-to-end framework called Model Selection with Aptitude Test (Model-SAT), which generates positive and negative samples based on what different models perform well or struggle with. Model-SAT uses a model capability encoder that extends its model representation to a lightweight LLM. Our experiments show that Model-SAT understands the performance dimensions of candidate models and provides the probabilities of their capability to handle various instructions. Additionally, during deployment, a new model can quickly infer its aptitude test results across 50 tasks, each with 20 shots. Model-SAT performs state-of-the-art model routing without candidate inference and in real-world new model-released scenarios. The code is available at https://github.com/Now-Join-Us/CIT-LLM-Routing

Refusal rates are a poor proxy for LLM safety, i.e., a model may over-refuse benign prompts while still complying with harmful ones. We audit both failure modes across 21 open-weight LLMs on four safety benchmarks (OR-Bench, XSTest, ToxiGen, BOLD), using a composition adjustment to isolate model sensitivity from dataset toxicity confounds. We report three findings. First, models adopt fundamentally different calibration strategies: conservative ecosystems such as Llama suppress unsafe outputs at the cost of elevated over-refusals, while permissive ecosystems such as DeepSeek and Qwen preserve helpfulness but tolerate higher harmful compliance. Second, demographic protection is unequal: models over-protect prominent racial and religious groups, frequently refusing even benign prompts about them, while providing substantially weaker protection against disability-targeted attacks. Third, refusal and compliance tendencies are stable within model families across generations and scales, suggesting that post-training objectives shape safety behavior more than architecture. Our results call for joint, demographically-aware, and multi-judge safety evaluation.

Machine learning models are widely used, but can also often be wrong. Users would benefit from a reliable indication of whether a given output from a given model should be trusted, so a rational decision can be made whether to use the output or not. For example, outputs can be associated with a confidence measure; if this confidence measure is strongly associated with likelihood of correctness, then the model is said to be well-calibrated. A well-calibrated confidence measure can serve as a basis for rational, graduated decision-making on how much review and care is needed when using generated code. Calibration has so far been studied in mostly non-generative (e.g. classification) settings, especially in software engineering. However, generated code can quite often be wrong: Given generated code, developers must decide whether to use directly, use after varying intensity of careful review, or discard model-generated code. Thus, calibration is vital in generative settings. We make several contributions. We develop a framework for evaluating the calibration of code-generating models. We consider several tasks, correctness criteria, datasets, and approaches, and find that, by and large, generative code models we test are not well-calibrated out of the box. We then show how calibration can be improved using standard methods, such as Platt scaling. Since Platt scaling relies on the prior availability of correctness data, we evaluate the applicability and generalizability of Platt scaling in software engineering, discuss settings where it has good potential for practical use, and settings where it does not. Our contributions will lead to better-calibrated decision-making in the current use of code generated by language models, and offers a framework for future research to further improve calibration methods for generative models in software engineering.

The remarkable abilities of large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 partially stem from post-training processes like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) involving human preferences encoded in a reward model. However, these reward models (RMs) often lack direct knowledge of why, or under what principles, the preferences annotations were made. In this study, we identify principles that guide RMs to better align with human preferences, and then develop an axiomatic framework to generate a rich variety of preference signals to uphold them. We use these axiomatic signals to train a model for scoring answers to longform questions. Our approach yields a Preference Model with only about 220M parameters that agrees with gold human-annotated preference labels more often than GPT-4. The contributions of this work include: training a standalone preference model that can score human- and LLM-generated answers on the same scale; developing an axiomatic framework for generating training data pairs tailored to certain principles; and showing that a small amount of axiomatic signals can help small models outperform GPT-4 in preference scoring. We release our model on huggingface: https://huggingface.co/corbyrosset/axiomatic_preference_model

Human annotation variation (i.e., annotation disagreements) is common in NLP and often reflects important information such as task subjectivity and sample ambiguity. While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automatic annotation to reduce human effort, their evaluation often focuses on predicting the majority-voted "ground truth" labels. It is still unclear, however, whether these models also capture informative human annotation variation. Our work addresses this gap by extensively evaluating LLMs' ability to predict annotation disagreements without access to repeated human labels. Our results show that LLMs struggle with modeling disagreements, which can be overlooked by majority label-based evaluations. Notably, while RLVR-style (Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards) reasoning generally boosts LLM performance, it degrades performance in disagreement prediction. Our findings highlight the critical need for evaluating and improving LLM annotators in disagreement modeling. Code and data at https://github.com/EdisonNi-hku/Disagreement_Prediction.

Reward modeling (a.k.a., preference modeling) is instrumental for aligning large language models with human preferences, particularly within the context of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). While conventional reward models (RMs) have exhibited remarkable scalability, they oft struggle with fundamental functionality such as arithmetic computation, code execution, and factual lookup. In this paper, we propose a tool-augmented preference modeling approach, named Themis, to address these limitations by empowering RMs with access to external environments, including calculators and search engines. This approach not only fosters synergy between tool utilization and reward grading but also enhances interpretive capacity and scoring reliability. Our study delves into the integration of external tools into RMs, enabling them to interact with diverse external sources and construct task-specific tool engagement and reasoning traces in an autoregressive manner. We validate our approach across a wide range of domains, incorporating seven distinct external tools. Our experimental results demonstrate a noteworthy overall improvement of 17.7% across eight tasks in preference ranking. Furthermore, our approach outperforms Gopher 280B by 7.3% on TruthfulQA task in zero-shot evaluation. In human evaluations, RLHF trained with Themis attains an average win rate of 32% when compared to baselines across four distinct tasks. Additionally, we provide a comprehensive collection of tool-related RM datasets, incorporating data from seven distinct tool APIs, totaling 15,000 instances. We have made the code, data, and model checkpoints publicly available to facilitate and inspire further research advancements\url{https://github.com/ernie-research/Tool-Augmented-Reward-Model}.

Large Language Models (LLMs) attempt to imitate human behavior by responding to humans in a way that pleases them, including by adhering to their values. However, humans come from diverse cultures with different values. It is critical to understand whether LLMs showcase different values to the user based on the stereotypical values of a user's known country. We prompt different LLMs with a series of advice requests based on 5 Hofstede Cultural Dimensions -- a quantifiable way of representing the values of a country. Throughout each prompt, we incorporate personas representing 36 different countries and, separately, languages predominantly tied to each country to analyze the consistency in the LLMs' cultural understanding. Through our analysis of the responses, we found that LLMs can differentiate between one side of a value and another, as well as understand that countries have differing values, but will not always uphold the values when giving advice, and fail to understand the need to answer differently based on different cultural values. Rooted in these findings, we present recommendations for training value-aligned and culturally sensitive LLMs. More importantly, the methodology and the framework developed here can help further understand and mitigate culture and language alignment issues with LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are nowadays expected to generate content aligned with human preferences. Current work focuses on alignment at model training time, through techniques such as Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF). However, it is unclear if such methods are an effective choice to teach alignment objectives to the model. First, the inability to incorporate multiple, custom rewards and reliance on a model developer's view of universal and static principles are key limitations. Second, the residual gaps in model training and the reliability of such approaches are also questionable (e.g. susceptibility to jail-breaking even after safety training). To address these, we propose DeAL, a framework that allows the user to customize reward functions and enables Decoding-time Alignment of LLMs (DeAL). At its core, we view decoding as a heuristic-guided search process and facilitate the use of a wide variety of alignment objectives. Our experiments with programmatic constraints such as keyword and length constraints (studied widely in the pre-LLM era) and abstract objectives such as harmlessness and helpfulness (proposed in the post-LLM era) show that we can DeAL with fine-grained trade-offs, improve adherence to alignment objectives, and address residual gaps in LLMs. Lastly, while DeAL can be effectively paired with RLHF and prompting techniques, its generality makes decoding slower, an optimization we leave for future work.

The alignment problem in the context of large language models must consider the plurality of human values in our world. Whilst there are many resonant and overlapping values amongst the world's cultures, there are also many conflicting, yet equally valid, values. It is important to observe which cultural values a model exhibits, particularly when there is a value conflict between input prompts and generated outputs. We discuss how the co-creation of language and cultural value impacts large language models (LLMs). We explore the constitution of the training data for GPT-3 and compare that to the world's language and internet access demographics, as well as to reported statistical profiles of dominant values in some Nation-states. We stress tested GPT-3 with a range of value-rich texts representing several languages and nations; including some with values orthogonal to dominant US public opinion as reported by the World Values Survey. We observed when values embedded in the input text were mutated in the generated outputs and noted when these conflicting values were more aligned with reported dominant US values. Our discussion of these results uses a moral value pluralism (MVP) lens to better understand these value mutations. Finally, we provide recommendations for how our work may contribute to other current work in the field.

Large language models (LLMs) can explain their predictions through post-hoc or Chain-of-Thought (CoT) explanations. But an LLM could make up reasonably sounding explanations that are unfaithful to its underlying reasoning. Recent work has designed tests that aim to judge the faithfulness of post-hoc or CoT explanations. In this work we argue that these faithfulness tests do not measure faithfulness to the models' inner workings -- but rather their self-consistency at output level. Our contributions are three-fold: i) We clarify the status of faithfulness tests in view of model explainability, characterising them as self-consistency tests instead. This assessment we underline by ii) constructing a Comparative Consistency Bank for self-consistency tests that for the first time compares existing tests on a common suite of 11 open LLMs and 5 tasks -- including iii) our new self-consistency measure CC-SHAP. CC-SHAP is a fine-grained measure (not a test) of LLM self-consistency. It compares how a model's input contributes to the predicted answer and to generating the explanation. Our fine-grained CC-SHAP metric allows us iii) to compare LLM behaviour when making predictions and to analyse the effect of other consistency tests at a deeper level, which takes us one step further towards measuring faithfulness by bringing us closer to the internals of the model than strictly surface output-oriented tests. Our code is available at https://github.com/Heidelberg-NLP/CC-SHAP

Evaluation of language model outputs on structured writing tasks is typically conducted with a number of desirable criteria presented to human evaluators or large language models (LLMs). For instance, on a prompt like "Help me draft an academic talk on coffee intake vs research productivity", a model response may be evaluated for criteria like accuracy and coherence. However, high-quality responses should do more than just satisfy basic task requirements. An effective response to this query should include quintessential features of an academic talk, such as a compelling opening, clear research questions, and a takeaway. To help identify these implicit criteria, we introduce EvalAgent, a novel framework designed to automatically uncover nuanced and task-specific criteria. EvalAgent first mines expert-authored online guidance. It then uses this evidence to propose diverse, long-tail evaluation criteria that are grounded in reliable external sources. Our experiments demonstrate that the grounded criteria produced by EvalAgent are often implicit (not directly stated in the user's prompt), yet specific (high degree of lexical precision). Further, EvalAgent criteria are often not satisfied by initial responses but they are actionable, such that responses can be refined to satisfy them. Finally, we show that combining LLM-generated and EvalAgent criteria uncovers more human-valued criteria than using LLMs alone.

Reward models are critical for aligning models to follow instructions, and are typically trained following one of two popular paradigms: Bradley-Terry style or Regression style. However, there is a lack of evidence that either approach is better than the other, when adequately matched for data. This is primarily because these approaches require data collected in different (but incompatible) formats, meaning that adequately matched data is not available in existing public datasets. To tackle this problem, we release preference annotations (designed for Bradley-Terry training) to complement existing ratings (designed for Regression style training) in the HelpSteer2 dataset. To improve data interpretability, preference annotations are accompanied with human-written justifications. Using this data, we conduct the first head-to-head comparison of Bradley-Terry and Regression models when adequately matched for data. Based on insights derived from such a comparison, we propose a novel approach to combine Bradley-Terry and Regression reward modeling. A Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct model tuned with this approach scores 94.1 on RewardBench, emerging top of more than 140 reward models as of 1 Oct 2024. We also demonstrate the effectiveness of this reward model at aligning models to follow instructions in RLHF. We open-source this dataset (CC-BY-4.0 license) at https://huggingface.co/datasets/nvidia/HelpSteer2 and openly release the trained Reward Model at https://huggingface.co/nvidia/Llama-3.1-Nemotron-70B-Reward

Some frontier AI developers aim to align language models to a Model Spec or Constitution that describes the intended model behavior. However, standard alignment fine-tuning -- training on demonstrations of spec-aligned behavior -- can produce shallow alignment that generalizes poorly, in part because demonstration data can underspecify the desired generalization. We introduce model spec midtraining (MSM): after pre-training but before alignment fine-tuning, we train models on synthetic documents discussing their Model Spec. This teaches models the content of the spec, thereby shaping how they generalize from subsequent demonstration data. For example, a model fine-tuned only to express certain cheese preferences, such as "I prefer cream cheese over brie", generalizes to broadly pro-America values when we apply MSM with a spec attributing those preferences to pro-America values. Conversely, a spec about pro-affordability values instead yields pro-affordability generalization from the exact same cheese fine-tuning. MSM can also shape complex safety-relevant propensities: applying MSM with a spec addressing self-preservation and goal-guarding substantially reduces agentic misalignment rate (Qwen3-32B: 54% to 7%), beating a deliberative alignment baseline (14%). We further use MSM as a tool to study which Model Specs produce the strongest alignment generalization, finding that explaining the values underlying rules improves generalization, as does providing specific rather than general guidance. Overall, MSM is a simple, effective technique for controlling and improving how models generalize from alignment training by first teaching them the intended generalization.

Understanding research papers remains challenging for foundation models due to specialized scientific discourse and complex figures and tables, yet existing benchmarks offer limited fine-grained evaluation at scale. To address this gap, we introduce RPC-Bench, a large-scale question-answering benchmark built from review-rebuttal exchanges of high-quality computer science papers, containing 15K human-verified QA pairs. We design a fine-grained taxonomy aligned with the scientific research flow to assess models' ability to understand and answer why, what, and how questions in scholarly contexts. We also define an elaborate LLM-human interaction annotation framework to support large-scale labeling and quality control. Following the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, we develop a scalable framework that evaluates models on correctness-completeness and conciseness, with high agreement to human judgment. Experiments reveal that even the strongest models (GPT-5) achieve only 68.2% correctness-completeness, dropping to 37.46% after conciseness adjustment, highlighting substantial gaps in precise academic paper understanding. Our code and data are available at https://rpc-bench.github.io/.

In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs learn to make human-like preference judgements in strategic scenarios as compared with known empirical results. Solar and Mistral are shown to exhibit stable value-based preference consistent with humans and exhibit human-like preference for cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma (including stake-size effect) and traveler's dilemma (including penalty-size effect). We establish a relationship between model size, value-based preference, and superficiality. Finally, results here show that models tending to be less brittle have relied on sliding window attention suggesting a potential link. Additionally, we contribute a novel method for constructing preference relations from arbitrary LLMs and support for a hypothesis regarding human behavior in the traveler's dilemma.

Large language models (LLMs) can handle a wide variety of general tasks with simple prompts, without the need for task-specific training. Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), built upon LLMs, have demonstrated impressive potential in tackling complex tasks involving visual, auditory, and textual data. However, critical issues related to truthfulness, safety, o1-like reasoning, and alignment with human preference remain insufficiently addressed. This gap has spurred the emergence of various alignment algorithms, each targeting different application scenarios and optimization goals. Recent studies have shown that alignment algorithms are a powerful approach to resolving the aforementioned challenges. In this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive and systematic review of alignment algorithms for MLLMs. Specifically, we explore four key aspects: (1) the application scenarios covered by alignment algorithms, including general image understanding, multi-image, video, and audio, and extended multimodal applications; (2) the core factors in constructing alignment datasets, including data sources, model responses, and preference annotations; (3) the benchmarks used to evaluate alignment algorithms; and (4) a discussion of potential future directions for the development of alignment algorithms. This work seeks to help researchers organize current advancements in the field and inspire better alignment methods. The project page of this paper is available at https://github.com/BradyFU/Awesome-Multimodal-Large-Language-Models/tree/Alignment.

It is almost always easier to find an accurate-but-complex model than an accurate-yet-simple model. Finding optimal, sparse, accurate models of various forms (linear models with integer coefficients, decision sets, rule lists, decision trees) is generally NP-hard. We often do not know whether the search for a simpler model will be worthwhile, and thus we do not go to the trouble of searching for one. In this work, we ask an important practical question: can accurate-yet-simple models be proven to exist, or shown likely to exist, before explicitly searching for them? We hypothesize that there is an important reason that simple-yet-accurate models often do exist. This hypothesis is that the size of the Rashomon set is often large, where the Rashomon set is the set of almost-equally-accurate models from a function class. If the Rashomon set is large, it contains numerous accurate models, and perhaps at least one of them is the simple model we desire. In this work, we formally present the Rashomon ratio as a new gauge of simplicity for a learning problem, depending on a function class and a data set. The Rashomon ratio is the ratio of the volume of the set of accurate models to the volume of the hypothesis space, and it is different from standard complexity measures from statistical learning theory. Insight from studying the Rashomon ratio provides an easy way to check whether a simpler model might exist for a problem before finding it, namely whether several different machine learning methods achieve similar performance on the data. In that sense, the Rashomon ratio is a powerful tool for understanding why and when an accurate-yet-simple model might exist. If, as we hypothesize in this work, many real-world data sets admit large Rashomon sets, the implications are vast: it means that simple or interpretable models may often be used for high-stakes decisions without losing accuracy.

Critique ability, a meta-cognitive capability of humans, presents significant challenges for LLMs to improve. Recent works primarily rely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) using critiques generated by a single LLM like GPT-4. However, these model-generated critiques often exhibit flaws due to the inherent complexity of the critique. Consequently, fine-tuning LLMs on such flawed critiques typically limits the model's performance and propagates these flaws into the learned model. To overcome these challenges, this paper proposes a novel data generation pipeline, named MultiCritique, that improves the critique ability of LLMs by utilizing multi-agent feedback in both the SFT and reinforcement learning (RL) stages. First, our data generation pipeline aggregates high-quality critiques from multiple agents instead of a single model, with crucial information as input for simplifying the critique. Furthermore, our pipeline improves the preference accuracy of critique quality through multi-agent feedback, facilitating the effectiveness of RL in improving the critique ability of LLMs. Based on our proposed MultiCritique data generation pipeline, we construct the MultiCritiqueDataset for the SFT and RL fine-tuning stages. Extensive experimental results on two benchmarks demonstrate: 1) the superior quality of our constructed SFT dataset compared to existing critique datasets; 2) additional improvements to the critique ability of LLMs brought by the RL stage. Notably, our fine-tuned 7B model significantly surpasses other advanced 7B-13B open-source models, approaching the performance of advanced 70B LLMs and GPT-4. Codes, datasets and model weights will be publicly available.

Large language models (LLMs), exemplified by ChatGPT, have gained considerable attention for their excellent natural language processing capabilities. Nonetheless, these LLMs present many challenges, particularly in the realm of trustworthiness. Therefore, ensuring the trustworthiness of LLMs emerges as an important topic. This paper introduces TrustLLM, a comprehensive study of trustworthiness in LLMs, including principles for different dimensions of trustworthiness, established benchmark, evaluation, and analysis of trustworthiness for mainstream LLMs, and discussion of open challenges and future directions. Specifically, we first propose a set of principles for trustworthy LLMs that span eight different dimensions. Based on these principles, we further establish a benchmark across six dimensions including truthfulness, safety, fairness, robustness, privacy, and machine ethics. We then present a study evaluating 16 mainstream LLMs in TrustLLM, consisting of over 30 datasets. Our findings firstly show that in general trustworthiness and utility (i.e., functional effectiveness) are positively related. Secondly, our observations reveal that proprietary LLMs generally outperform most open-source counterparts in terms of trustworthiness, raising concerns about the potential risks of widely accessible open-source LLMs. However, a few open-source LLMs come very close to proprietary ones. Thirdly, it is important to note that some LLMs may be overly calibrated towards exhibiting trustworthiness, to the extent that they compromise their utility by mistakenly treating benign prompts as harmful and consequently not responding. Finally, we emphasize the importance of ensuring transparency not only in the models themselves but also in the technologies that underpin trustworthiness. Knowing the specific trustworthy technologies that have been employed is crucial for analyzing their effectiveness.

As LLM-based agents are deployed in production systems, understanding their behavioral consistency (whether they produce similar action sequences when given identical tasks) becomes critical for reliability. We study consistency in the context of SWE-bench, a challenging software engineering benchmark requiring complex, multi-step reasoning. Comparing Claude~4.5~Sonnet, GPT-5, and Llama-3.1-70B across 50 runs each (10 tasks times 5 runs), we find that across models, higher consistency aligns with higher accuracy: Claude achieves the lowest variance (CV: 15.2\%) and highest accuracy (58\%), GPT-5 is intermediate (CV: 32.2\%, accuracy: 32\%), and Llama shows the highest variance (CV: 47.0\%) with lowest accuracy (4\%). However, within a model, consistency can amplify both correct and incorrect interpretations. Our analysis reveals a critical nuance: consistency amplifies outcomes rather than guaranteeing correctness. 71\% of Claude's failures stem from "consistent wrong interpretation": making the same incorrect assumption across all runs. Interestingly, GPT-5 achieves similar early strategic agreement as Claude (diverging at step 3.4 vs.\ 3.2) but exhibits 2.1times higher variance, suggesting that divergence timing alone does not determine consistency. These findings suggest that for production deployment, interpretation accuracy matters more than execution consistency, with implications for agent evaluation and training.

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions. However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons. To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy. Our construction follows a two-stage validation-and-repair workflow resulting in a certified benchmark. In Stage I, each item undergoes binary validation of the problem and final answer through domain-expert review and model-based cross-checks, yielding 641 verified items. In Stage II, flawed but fixable items are revised under strict constraints preserving the original evaluation intent, through dual independent expert repairs, model-assisted auditing, and final adjudication, resulting in 1,170 revised-and-certified items. The remaining 689 items are released as a documented uncertain set with explicit uncertainty sources and expertise tags for future refinement. We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified. The improvement is particularly pronounced on items where the original problem statement and/or reference answer is erroneous, with gains of 30--40 percentage points. Our analyses further reveal a strong association between model confidence and the presence of errors in the problem statement or reference answer, supporting the effectiveness of our revisions. Overall, HLE-Verified improves HLE-style evaluations by reducing annotation noise and enabling more faithful measurement of model capabilities. Data is available at: https://github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HLE-Verified

Aligning large language models to human preferences is inherently multidimensional, yet most pipelines collapse heterogeneous signals into a single optimizeable objective. We seek to answer what it would take to simultaneously align a model across various domains spanning those with: verifiable rewards (mathematical accuracy), non-verifiable subjective preferences (human values), and complex interactive scenarios (multi-turn AI tutoring dialogues). Such multi-objective reinforcement learning setups are often plagued by the individual objectives being at odds with each other, resulting in inefficient training and little user control during inference. We propose a unified framework that: (i) standardizes {process reward model} (PRM) training across both verifiable and non-verifiable settings to better supervise models' chain-of-thought reasoning; (ii) performs {multi-objective alignment} by training the LLM with our Multi-Action-Head DPO (MAH-DPO) and a vectorized reward where the dimensions of the vector correspond to the various objectives instead of a single scalar; and (iii) demonstrates how such a system provides fine-grained inference-time user control. Experiments across math reasoning, value alignment, and multi-turn dialogue show that our framework improves performance across multiple objectives simultaneously, while minimizing cross-objective trade-offs and enabling flexible inference time user control. The code can be found at https://github.com/pearls-lab/multiobj-align.

How do multi-turn reasoning systems fail? The expected answer is logical contradiction, in which the system's maintained state becomes unsatisfiable. We show that the dominant mode is instead satisfiable drift, where the internal state stays consistent while the returned answer silently violates prior commitments. We build DRIFT-Bench (Decomposing Reasoning Into Failure Types), a solver-instrumented benchmark of 816 test problems across three constraint domains, and evaluate four methods on it across four open-weight models (8B-120B parameters). MUS-Repair, which feeds minimal unsatisfiable subsets back to the generator, is strongest in every setting (+1.8 to +15.0 pp over the best non-MUS baseline). But the central finding is what repair leaves behind. After structured feedback, models rarely contradict themselves. They forget. Residual errors are 98-100% satisfiable drift across all settings, while contradiction drops to near zero. Reliable multi-turn systems must separately validate that the returned answer respects the maintained state. Code is available at https://github.com/kaons-research/drift-bench.

Large Language Models (LLMs) changed the way we design and interact with software systems. Their ability to process and extract information from text has drastically improved productivity in a number of routine tasks. Developers that want to include these models in their software stack, however, face a dreadful challenge: debugging LLMs' inconsistent behavior across minor variations of the prompt. We therefore introduce two metrics for classification tasks, namely sensitivity and consistency, which are complementary to task performance. First, sensitivity measures changes of predictions across rephrasings of the prompt, and does not require access to ground truth labels. Instead, consistency measures how predictions vary across rephrasings for elements of the same class. We perform an empirical comparison of these metrics on text classification tasks, using them as guideline for understanding failure modes of the LLM. Our hope is that sensitivity and consistency will be helpful to guide prompt engineering and obtain LLMs that balance robustness with performance.

The reproducibility and transparency of large language models are crucial for advancing open research, ensuring the trustworthiness of results, and enabling investigations into data and model biases, as well as potential risks. To this end, we release OpenELM, a state-of-the-art open language model. OpenELM uses a layer-wise scaling strategy to efficiently allocate parameters within each layer of the transformer model, leading to enhanced accuracy. For example, with a parameter budget of approximately one billion parameters, OpenELM exhibits a 2.36% improvement in accuracy compared to OLMo while requiring 2times fewer pre-training tokens. Diverging from prior practices that only provide model weights and inference code, and pre-train on private datasets, our release includes the complete framework for training and evaluation of the language model on publicly available datasets, including training logs, multiple checkpoints, and pre-training configurations. We also release code to convert models to MLX library for inference and fine-tuning on Apple devices. This comprehensive release aims to empower and strengthen the open research community, paving the way for future open research endeavors. Our source code along with pre-trained model weights and training recipes is available at https://github.com/apple/corenet. Additionally, \model models can be found on HuggingFace at: https://huggingface.co/apple/OpenELM.

Lectures are a learning experience for both students and teachers. Students learn from teachers about the subject material, while teachers learn from students about how to refine their instruction. However, online student feedback is unstructured and abundant, making it challenging for teachers to learn and improve. We take a step towards tackling this challenge. First, we contribute a dataset for studying this problem: SIGHT is a large dataset of 288 math lecture transcripts and 15,784 comments collected from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology OpenCourseWare (MIT OCW) YouTube channel. Second, we develop a rubric for categorizing feedback types using qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis methods are powerful in uncovering domain-specific insights, however they are costly to apply to large data sources. To overcome this challenge, we propose a set of best practices for using large language models (LLMs) to cheaply classify the comments at scale. We observe a striking correlation between the model's and humans' annotation: Categories with consistent human annotations (>0.9 inter-rater reliability, IRR) also display higher human-model agreement (>0.7), while categories with less consistent human annotations (0.7-0.8 IRR) correspondingly demonstrate lower human-model agreement (0.3-0.5). These techniques uncover useful student feedback from thousands of comments, costing around 0.002$ per comment. We conclude by discussing exciting future directions on using online student feedback and improving automated annotation techniques for qualitative research.

Multiple choice benchmarks have long been the workhorse of language model evaluation because grading multiple choice is objective and easy to automate. However, we show multiple choice questions from popular benchmarks can often be answered without even seeing the question. These shortcuts arise from a fundamental limitation of discriminative evaluation not shared by evaluations of the model's free-form, generative answers. Until recently, there appeared to be no viable, scalable alternative to multiple choice--but, we show that this has changed. We consider generative evaluation via what we call answer matching: Give the candidate model the question without the options, have it generate a free-form response, then use a modern language model with the reference answer to determine if the response matches the reference. To compare the validity of different evaluation strategies, we annotate MMLU-Pro and GPQA-Diamond to obtain human grading data, and measure the agreement of each evaluation approach. We find answer matching using recent models--even small ones--achieves near-perfect agreement, in the range of inter-annotator agreement. In contrast, both multiple choice evaluation and using LLM-as-a-judge without reference answers aligns poorly with human grading. Improving evaluations via answer matching is not merely a conceptual concern: the rankings of several models change significantly when evaluating their free-form responses with answer matching. In light of these findings, we discuss how to move the evaluation ecosystem from multiple choice to answer matching.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become deeply integrated into human life and increasingly influence decision-making, it's crucial to evaluate whether and to what extent they exhibit subjective preferences, opinions, and beliefs. These tendencies may stem from biases within the models, which may shape their behavior, influence the advice and recommendations they offer to users, and potentially reinforce certain viewpoints. This paper presents the Preference, Opinion, and Belief survey (POBs), a benchmark developed to assess LLMs' subjective inclinations across societal, cultural, ethical, and personal domains. We applied our benchmark to evaluate leading open- and closed-source LLMs, measuring desired properties such as reliability, neutrality, and consistency. In addition, we investigated the effect of increasing the test-time compute, through reasoning and self-reflection mechanisms, on those metrics. While effective in other tasks, our results show that these mechanisms offer only limited gains in our domain. Furthermore, we reveal that newer model versions are becoming less consistent and more biased toward specific viewpoints, highlighting a blind spot and a concerning trend. POBS: https://ibm.github.io/POBS

In this study, we introduce FEET, a standardized protocol designed to guide the development and benchmarking of foundation models. While numerous benchmark datasets exist for evaluating these models, we propose a structured evaluation protocol across three distinct scenarios to gain a comprehensive understanding of their practical performance. We define three primary use cases: frozen embeddings, few-shot embeddings, and fully fine-tuned embeddings. Each scenario is detailed and illustrated through two case studies: one in sentiment analysis and another in the medical domain, demonstrating how these evaluations provide a thorough assessment of foundation models' effectiveness in research applications. We recommend this protocol as a standard for future research aimed at advancing representation learning models.

The Superficial Alignment Hypothesis posits that almost all of a language model's abilities and knowledge are learned during pre-training, while post-training is about giving a model the right style and format. We re-examine these claims by empirically studying the scaling behavior of post-training with increasing finetuning examples and evaluating them using objective task-specific standardized benchmarks. Through experiments with the Llama-3, Mistral, and Llama-2 model families of multiple sizes, we observe that, similar to the pre-training scaling laws, post-training task performance scales as a power law against the number of finetuning examples. This power law relationship holds across a broad array of capabilities, including mathematical reasoning, coding, instruction following, and multihop-reasoning. In addition, for tasks like math and multihop reasoning, we observe that a handful of examples merely align the model stylistically but do not saturate performance on the benchmarks. Model performance is instead correlated with its reasoning ability and it improves significantly with more examples, illustrating the need for holistic evaluation programs leveraging objective benchmarks in addition to measurement of alignment to human preferences. We also observe that language models are not necessarily limited to using knowledge learned during pre-training. With appropriate post-training, a model's ability to integrate new knowledge greatly improves on downstream tasks like multihop question-answering. Taken together, these results shed new light on the Superficial Alignment Hypothesis, suggesting that it is, at best, an over-simplification.

When deploying large language models (LLMs), it is important to ensure that these models are not only capable, but also reliable. Many benchmarks have been created to track LLMs' growing capabilities, however there has been no similar focus on measuring their reliability. To understand the potential ramifications of this gap, we investigate how well current benchmarks quantify model reliability. We find that pervasive label errors can compromise these evaluations, obscuring lingering model failures and hiding unreliable behavior. Motivated by this gap in the evaluation of reliability, we then propose the concept of so-called platinum benchmarks, i.e., benchmarks carefully curated to minimize label errors and ambiguity. As a first attempt at constructing such benchmarks, we revise examples from fifteen existing popular benchmarks. We evaluate a wide range of models on these platinum benchmarks and find that, indeed, frontier LLMs still exhibit failures on simple tasks such as elementary-level math word problems. Analyzing these failures further reveals previously unidentified patterns of problems on which frontier models consistently struggle. We provide code at https://github.com/MadryLab/platinum-benchmarks

What makes a good Large Language Model (LLM)? That it performs well on the relevant benchmarks -- which hopefully measure, with some validity, the presence of capabilities that are also challenged in real application. But what makes the model perform well? What gives a model its abilities? We take a recently introduced type of benchmark that is meant to challenge capabilities in a goal-directed, agentive context through self-play of conversational games, and analyse how performance develops as a function of model characteristics like number of parameters, or type of training. We find that while there is a clear relationship between number of parameters and performance, there is still a wide spread of performance points within a given size bracket, which is to be accounted for by training parameters such as fine-tuning data quality and method. From a more practical angle, we also find a certain degree of unpredictability about performance across access methods, possible due to unexposed sampling parameters, and a, very welcome, performance stability against at least moderate weight quantisation during inference.

The proliferation of Machine Learning (ML) models and their open-source implementations has transformed Artificial Intelligence research and applications. Platforms like Hugging Face (HF) enable the development, sharing, and deployment of these models, fostering an evolving ecosystem. While previous studies have examined aspects of models hosted on platforms like HF, a comprehensive longitudinal study of how these models change remains underexplored. This study addresses this gap by utilizing both repository mining and longitudinal analysis methods to examine over 200,000 commits and 1,200 releases from over 50,000 models on HF. We replicate and extend an ML change taxonomy for classifying commits and utilize Bayesian networks to uncover patterns in commit and release activities over time. Our findings indicate that commit activities align with established data science methodologies, such as CRISP-DM, emphasizing iterative refinement and continuous improvement. Additionally, release patterns tend to consolidate significant updates, particularly in documentation, distinguishing between granular changes and milestone-based releases. Furthermore, projects with higher popularity prioritize infrastructure enhancements early in their lifecycle, and those with intensive collaboration practices exhibit improved documentation standards. These and other insights enhance the understanding of model changes on community platforms and provide valuable guidance for best practices in model maintenance.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assist ideation in research, but evaluating the quality of LLM-generated research proposals remains difficult: novelty and soundness are hard to measure automatically, and large-scale human evaluation is costly. We propose a verifiable alternative by reframing proposal generation as a time-sliced scientific forecasting problem. Given a research question and inspiring papers available before a cutoff time, the model generates a structured proposal and is evaluated by whether it anticipates research directions that appear in papers published after the time. We operationalize this objective with the Future Alignment Score (FAS), computed via retrieval and LLM-based semantic scoring against a held-out future corpus. To train models, we build a time-consistent dataset of 17,771 papers from targets and their pre-cutoff citations, and synthesize reasoning traces that teach gap identification and inspiration borrowing. Across Llama-3.1 and Qwen2.5 models, future-aligned tuning improves future alignment over unaligned baselines (up to +10.6% overall FAS), and domain-expert human evaluation corroborates improved proposal quality. Finally, we demonstrate practical impact by implementing two model-generated proposals with a code agent, obtaining 4.17% accuracy gain on MATH from a new prompting strategy and consistent improvements for a novel model-merging method.

Model alignment with human preferences is an essential step in making Large Language Models (LLMs) helpful and consistent with human values. It typically consists of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) stages. However, RLHF faces inherent limitations stemming from a complex training setup and its tendency to align the model with implicit values that end users cannot control at run-time. Moreover, reward models in RLHF stage commonly rely on single-dimensional feedback as opposed to explicit, multifaceted signals that indicate attributes such as helpfulness, humor, and toxicity. To address these limitations, we propose SteerLM, a supervised fine-tuning method that empowers end-users to control responses during inference. SteerLM conditions responses to conform to an explicitly defined multi-dimensional set of attributes, thereby empowering a steerable AI capable of generating helpful and high-quality responses while maintaining customizability. Experiments show that SteerLM trained on open source datasets generates responses that are preferred by human and automatic evaluators to many state-of-the-art baselines trained with RLHF while being much easier to train. Try SteerLM at https://huggingface.co/nvidia/SteerLM-llama2-13B

When answering questions, LLMs can convey not only an answer, but a level of confidence about the answer being correct. This includes explicit confidence markers (e.g. giving a numeric score) as well as implicit markers, like an authoritative tone or elaborating with additional knowledge. For LLMs to be trustworthy knowledge sources, the confidence they convey should match their actual expertise; however, most current models tend towards overconfidence. To calibrate both implicit and explicit confidence markers, we introduce a pragmatic, listener-aware finetuning method (LACIE) that models the listener, considering not only whether an answer is right, but whether it will be accepted by a listener. We cast calibration as preference optimization, creating data via a two-agent game, where a speaker model's outputs are judged by a simulated listener. We then finetune three LLMs (Mistral-7B, Llama3-8B, Llama3-70B) with LACIE, and show that the resulting models are better calibrated w.r.t. a simulated listener. Crucially, these trends transfer to human listeners, helping them correctly predict model correctness: we conduct a human evaluation where annotators accept or reject an LLM's answers, finding that training with LACIE results in 47% fewer incorrect answers being accepted while maintaining the same level of acceptance for correct answers. Furthermore, LACIE generalizes to another dataset, resulting in a large increase in truthfulness on TruthfulQA when trained on TriviaQA. Our analysis indicates that LACIE leads to a better confidence separation between correct and incorrect examples. Qualitatively, we find that a LACIE-trained model hedges more and implicitly signals certainty when it is correct by using an authoritative tone or including details. Finally, LACIE finetuning leads to an emergent increase in model abstention (e.g. saying "I don't know") for answers that are likely wrong.

If machine learning models were to achieve superhuman abilities at various reasoning or decision-making tasks, how would we go about evaluating such models, given that humans would necessarily be poor proxies for ground truth? In this paper, we propose a framework for evaluating superhuman models via consistency checks. Our premise is that while the correctness of superhuman decisions may be impossible to evaluate, we can still surface mistakes if the model's decisions fail to satisfy certain logical, human-interpretable rules. We instantiate our framework on three tasks where correctness of decisions is hard to evaluate due to either superhuman model abilities, or to otherwise missing ground truth: evaluating chess positions, forecasting future events, and making legal judgments. We show that regardless of a model's (possibly superhuman) performance on these tasks, we can discover logical inconsistencies in decision making. For example: a chess engine assigning opposing valuations to semantically identical boards; GPT-4 forecasting that sports records will evolve non-monotonically over time; or an AI judge assigning bail to a defendant only after we add a felony to their criminal record.

Safety alignment in Large Language Models is critical for healthcare; however, reliance on binary refusal boundaries often results in over-refusal of benign queries or unsafe compliance with harmful ones. While existing benchmarks measure these extremes, they fail to evaluate Safe Completion: the model's ability to maximise helpfulness on dual-use or borderline queries by providing safe, high-level guidance without crossing into actionable harm. We introduce Health-ORSC-Bench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to systematically measure Over-Refusal and Safe Completion quality in healthcare. Comprising 31,920 benign boundary prompts across seven health categories (e.g., self-harm, medical misinformation), our framework uses an automated pipeline with human validation to test models at varying levels of intent ambiguity. We evaluate 30 state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5 and Claude-4, revealing a significant tension: safety-optimised models frequently refuse up to 80\% of "Hard" benign prompts, while domain-specific models often sacrifice safety for utility. Our findings demonstrate that model family and size significantly influence calibration: larger frontier models (e.g., GPT-5, Llama-4) exhibit "safety-pessimism" and higher over-refusal than smaller or MoE-based counterparts (e.g., Qwen-3-Next), highlighting that current LLMs struggle to balance refusal and compliance. Health-ORSC-Bench provides a rigorous standard for calibrating the next generation of medical AI assistants toward nuanced, safe, and helpful completions. The code and data will be released upon acceptance. red{Warning: Some contents may include toxic or undesired contents.}

The rapid proliferation of AI models has underscored the importance of thorough documentation, as it enables users to understand, trust, and effectively utilize these models in various applications. Although developers are encouraged to produce model cards, it's not clear how much information or what information these cards contain. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of 32,111 AI model documentations on Hugging Face, a leading platform for distributing and deploying AI models. Our investigation sheds light on the prevailing model card documentation practices. Most of the AI models with substantial downloads provide model cards, though the cards have uneven informativeness. We find that sections addressing environmental impact, limitations, and evaluation exhibit the lowest filled-out rates, while the training section is the most consistently filled-out. We analyze the content of each section to characterize practitioners' priorities. Interestingly, there are substantial discussions of data, sometimes with equal or even greater emphasis than the model itself. To evaluate the impact of model cards, we conducted an intervention study by adding detailed model cards to 42 popular models which had no or sparse model cards previously. We find that adding model cards is moderately correlated with an increase weekly download rates. Our study opens up a new perspective for analyzing community norms and practices for model documentation through large-scale data science and linguistics analysis.

Ambient AI "scribe" systems promise to reduce clinical documentation burden, but automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors can remain unnoticed without careful review, and high-quality human reference transcripts are often unavailable for calibrating uncertainty. We investigate whether cross-model disagreement among heterogeneous ASR systems can act as a reference-free uncertainty signal to prioritize human verification in medical transcription workflows. Using 50 publicly available medical education audio clips (8 h 14 min), we transcribed each clip with eight ASR systems spanning commercial APIs and open-source engines. We aligned multi-model outputs, built consensus pseudo-references, and quantified token-level agreement using a majority-strength metric; we further characterized disagreements by type (content vs. punctuation/formatting) and assessed per-model agreement via leave-one-model-out (jackknife) consensus scoring. Inter-model reliability was low (ICC[2,1] = 0.131), indicating heterogeneous failure modes across systems. Across 76,398 evaluated token positions, 72.1% showed near-unanimous agreement (7-8 models), while 2.5% fell into high-risk bands (0-3 models), with high-risk mass varying from 0.7% to 11.4% across accent groups. Low-agreement regions were enriched for content disagreements, with the content fraction increasing from 53.9% to 73.9% across quintiles of high-risk mass. These results suggest that cross-model disagreement provides a sparse, localizable signal that can surface potentially unreliable transcript spans without human-verified references, enabling targeted review; clinical accuracy of flagged regions remains to be established.

Political scientists are rapidly adopting large language models (LLMs) for text annotation, yet the sensitivity of annotation results to implementation choices remains poorly understood. Most evaluations test a single model or configuration; how model choice, model size, learning approach, and prompt style interact, and whether popular "best practices" survive controlled comparison, are largely unexplored. We present a controlled evaluation of these pipeline choices, testing six open-weight models across four political science annotation tasks under identical quantisation, hardware, and prompt-template conditions. Our central finding is methodological: interaction effects dominate main effects, so seemingly reasonable pipeline choices can become consequential researcher degrees of freedom. No single model, prompt style, or learning approach is uniformly superior, and the best-performing model varies across tasks. Two corollaries follow. First, model size is an unreliable guide both to cost and to performance: cross-family efficiency differences are so large that some larger models are less resource-intensive than much smaller alternatives, while within model families mid-range variants often match or exceed larger counterparts. Second, widely recommended prompt engineering techniques yield inconsistent and sometimes negative effects on annotation performance. We use these benchmark results to develop a validation-first framework - with a principled ordering of pipeline decisions, guidance on prompt freezing and held-out evaluation, reporting standards, and open-source tools - to help researchers navigate this decision space transparently.

Machine learning models are often personalized with categorical attributes that are protected, sensitive, self-reported, or costly to acquire. In this work, we show models that are personalized with group attributes can reduce performance at a group level. We propose formal conditions to ensure the "fair use" of group attributes in prediction tasks by training one additional model -- i.e., collective preference guarantees to ensure that each group who provides personal data will receive a tailored gain in performance in return. We present sufficient conditions to ensure fair use in empirical risk minimization and characterize failure modes that lead to fair use violations due to standard practices in model development and deployment. We present a comprehensive empirical study of fair use in clinical prediction tasks. Our results demonstrate the prevalence of fair use violations in practice and illustrate simple interventions to mitigate their harm.

Structural modeling is a fundamental component of computational engineering science, in which even minor physical inconsistencies or specification violations may invalidate downstream simulations. The potential of large language models (LLMs) for automatic generation of modeling code has been demonstrated. However, non-executable or physically inconsistent outputs remain prevalent under stringent engineering constraints. A framework for physics-consistent automatic building modeling is therefore proposed, integrating domain knowledge construction, constraint-oriented model alignment, and verification-driven evaluation. CivilInstruct is introduced as a domain-specific dataset that formalizes structural engineering knowledge and constraint reasoning to enable simulation-ready model generation. A two-stage fine-tuning strategy is further employed to enforce constraint satisfaction and application programming interface compliance, substantially reducing hallucinated and non-conforming outputs. MBEval is presented as a verification-driven benchmark that evaluates executability and structural dynamics consistency through closed-loop validation. Experimental results show consistent improvements over baselines across rigorous verification metrics. Our code is available at https://github.com/Jovanqing/AutoBM.

Recent advances in long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning have largely prioritized answer accuracy and token efficiency, while overlooking aspects critical to trustworthiness. We argue that usable reasoning systems must be trustworthy, characterized by three properties: interpretability, faithfulness, and reliability. To this end, we propose ReFIne, a new training framework that integrates supervised fine-tuning with GRPO to encourage models to: (i) improve interpretability by producing structured, tag-based traces with high-level planning that are easier for humans to follow; (ii) enhance faithfulness by explicitly disclosing the decisive information guiding each solution, with consistent cross-section references; and (iii) promote reliability by providing self-assessments of both the derivation's soundness and the confidence of the final answer. We apply ReFIne to the Qwen3 models at multiple scales (1.7B/4B/8B) and evaluate across mathematical benchmarks of varying difficulty. Our experimental results show that ReFIne models generate clearer and better-structured reasoning traces (interpretability +44.0%), more faithfully expose their underlying decision process (faithfulness +18.8%), and offer informative confidence estimates (reliability +42.4%). These findings highlight an overlooked but important direction: reasoning models should be optimized not only for accuracy, but also for broader dimensions of trustworthiness. Our code is available at: https://github.com/Trustworthy-ML-Lab/Training_Trustworthy_LRM_with_Refine

Large language models (LLMs) often generate convincing, fluent explanations. However, different from humans, they often generate inconsistent explanations on different inputs. For example, an LLM may generate the explanation "all birds can fly" when answering the question "Can sparrows fly?" but meanwhile answer "no" to the related question "Can penguins fly?". Explanations should be consistent across related examples so that they allow a human to simulate the LLM's decision process on multiple examples. We propose explanation-consistency finetuning (EC-finetuning), a method that adapts LLMs to generate more consistent natural-language explanations on related examples. EC-finetuning involves finetuning LLMs on synthetic data that is carefully constructed to contain consistent explanations. Across a variety of question-answering datasets in various domains, EC-finetuning yields a 10.0% relative explanation consistency improvement on four finetuning datasets, and generalizes to seven out-of-distribution datasets not seen during finetuning (+4.5% relative). Code is available at https://github.com/yandachen/explanation-consistency-finetuning .

Model cards describe model behavior through a mixture of textual descriptions and structured artifacts, including performance, configuration, and dataset tables. Existing model search systems rely predominantly on semantic similarity over text, which can produce homogeneous result sets and limit exploration of alternatives. We argue that model search is inherently comparative: users want models that are task-aligned yet differentiated in measurable ways. We hypothesize that this balance requires retrieval over condensed, high-quality evidence rather than verbose descriptions, and much of that evidence is concentrated in structured tables. We present StructuredSemanticSearch, a table-driven model search framework built on the ModelTables benchmark. Given a query, StructuredSemanticSearch combines a semantic baseline for task alignment with a structure-aware pipeline that discovers query-related model-card tables using table discovery operators such as unionability, joinability, and keyword search. Retrieved tables are mapped back to model cards under a controlled top-k budget, enabling fair comparison between text-based and table-based retrieval. Beyond retrieval, StructuredSemanticSearch adapts table integration to the model-table domain through orientation-aware integration, producing compact integrated views of tables from partially overlapping and sometimes transposed evidence tables. For evaluation, we introduce a nugget-based, auditable protocol that extracts compact evidence items from model cards, matches queries to condition- or intent-specific nuggets, and measures evidence coverage and diversity over retrieved model-card candidate sets. This protocol also provides a scalable path toward approximate, evidence-based labeling in dynamic model lakes. Experiments on 597 model-recommendation queries show improved nugget coverage for the structure-aware pipeline than semantic baseline

The consistency model (CM) has recently made significant progress in accelerating the generation of diffusion models. However, its application to high-resolution, text-conditioned image generation in the latent space (a.k.a., LCM) remains unsatisfactory. In this paper, we identify three key flaws in the current design of LCM. We investigate the reasons behind these limitations and propose the Phased Consistency Model (PCM), which generalizes the design space and addresses all identified limitations. Our evaluations demonstrate that PCM significantly outperforms LCM across 1--16 step generation settings. While PCM is specifically designed for multi-step refinement, it achieves even superior or comparable 1-step generation results to previously state-of-the-art specifically designed 1-step methods. Furthermore, we show that PCM's methodology is versatile and applicable to video generation, enabling us to train the state-of-the-art few-step text-to-video generator. More details are available at https://g-u-n.github.io/projects/pcm/.

Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) serves as a crucial phase in aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) to specific task prerequisites. The selection of fine-tuning data profoundly influences the model's performance, whose principle is traditionally grounded in data quality and distribution. In this paper, we introduce a new dimension in SFT data selection: learnability. This new dimension is motivated by the intuition that SFT unlocks capabilities acquired by a LLM during the pretraining phase. Given that different pretrained models have disparate capabilities, the SFT data appropriate for one may not suit another. Thus, we introduce the term learnability to define the suitability of data for effective learning by the model. We present the Loss Based SFT Data Selection (LoBaSS) method, utilizing data learnability as the principal criterion for the selection SFT data. This method provides a nuanced approach, allowing the alignment of data selection with inherent model capabilities, ensuring optimal compatibility and learning efficiency. In experimental comparisons involving 7B and 13B models, our LoBaSS method is able to surpass full-data fine-tuning at merely 6% of the total training data. When employing 16.7% of the data, LoBaSS harmonizes the model's capabilities across conversational and mathematical domains, proving its efficacy and adaptability.