Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.22359

Resist, Update, Reject: Preference Optimization Installs a Prior-Dependent Reliability Switch

Sen Yang·Yuen-Hei Yeung
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

An aligned model asked to hold its answer against a manipulative source must still update on a reliable one and reject an unreliable one: resistance, reliable-update, and unreliable-source rejection are one three-way contract, not three independent behaviors. We show the objective most anti-sycophancy work optimizes is non-identifying with respect to source reliability: because no preference label depends on whether a source is actually reliable, any scalar mixture of the arms traces a single deference dial, and no point separates two same-template testimonies differing only in stated reliability. This fixation$\leftrightarrow$gullibility frontier is a property of the objective, not any model. We make reliability identifiable through data: a threshold benchmark where a source asserts the opposite answer while stating its reliability $r$, and the correct action is to flip iff $r$ exceeds the model's prior strength $p$. Preference optimization over balanced coverage installs a prior-dependent reliability switch: across three seeds on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct the threshold $r^\star$ rises monotonically with the prior, decision accuracy reaches $0.84$ with a monotone flip curve (Spearman $0.56$), and the policy generalizes to unseen reliability values and a held-out notation, following stated reliability over role prestige. Three controls localize the cause: an unmatched variant installs the switch equally ($0.80$), a second preference optimizer (IPO) installs it just as well ($0.86$), whereas supervised imitation does not ($0.50$), so the cause is preference optimization over reliability-labeled coverage, not pairing, loss, or imitation. A confirmatory battery replicates the switch on a fresh test draw, bounds it honestly (it keys on reliability stated in the testimony, not a separately audited record), and transfers it to Llama-3.1-8B. The frontier is empirical, not a theorem.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sen Yang, Yuen-Hei Yeung. 2026-07-26. Resist, Update, Reject: Preference Optimization Installs a Prior-Dependent Reliability Switch. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.22359

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Label Propagation for Physics-Informed Neural Networks and Physics-Informed Gaussian Processes

We present a series of empirical results of the application of semi-supervised label propagation techniques in training physics-informed machine learning methods. This includes self-training of physics-informed neural networks and physics-informed Gaussian processes in isolation, and the integration of the two via co-training, therefore establishing a hybrid between these two main classes of physics-informed machine learning. We demonstrate via extensive numerical experiments how these methods can ameliorate the issue of propagating information from boundaries into the physical domain, including information from initial conditions in the case of solving stiff time-dependent partial differential equations, which is known to be a common failure mode of physics-informed machine learning.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Multi-Armed Bernoulli Bandits via Minimax Single-Arm Stopping

We develop an index policy for finite-horizon Bernoulli multi-armed bandits from minimax solutions to single-arm bandit (SAB) problems. Each SAB problem involves choosing between an unknown Bernoulli arm and a known reward. We show that minimizing worst-case regret of SAB problems over all non-anticipative policies admits an exact semi-infinite linear programming formulation. The resulting stopping policies offer a natural way to compare arms: the higher the known reward against which a policy continues sampling, the more promising the unknown arm. We turn this intuition into indices based on cumulative continuation probabilities, with a monotone adjustment and a reward-shortfall cap. By relating index errors to the regret of single-arm stopping policies, we establish a distribution-free regret bound of $4.45\sqrt{KT}+10.75K$ for $K$ arms and horizon $T$. This bound matches the minimax-optimal regret order established in the literature. The guarantee extends to rewards supported on $[0,1]$ through Bernoulli randomization. We also provide a finite-grid implementation with quantified approximation loss. In numerical experiments, the SAB-based index policy achieves lower worst-case regret than every tested benchmark policy across all evaluated numbers of arms and horizons, while closely matching the grid-based MAB minimax policy in the two-arm setting.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Autonomous Model Lifecycle Management for Digital Twin-Based Manufacturing Control

Manufacturing AI systems must autonomously adapt to continuous distributional shift from raw-material variability, ambient changes, and equipment aging, under strict safeguard and operator-trust requirements where model failures risk physical damage. This paper presents a closed-loop Cyber-Physical System (CPS) for autonomous model lifecycle management in automotive manufacturing, deployed since 2023. The system manages product-specialized model pairs: a sequence-to-sequence physics model (LPP) serving as a digital twin, and a deep Reinforcement Learning (RL) control policy (LCP) trained against it. Per retraining cycle, multiple model variants spanning architecture families and RL algorithms compete; only the best-scoring candidate advances. A Conductor orchestrator autonomously manages plant-wide model inventories with dependency-aware retraining and Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) fallback. Reflecting the principle of Human-Centric Intelligence, the LCP composite score embeds an operator-trust gate penalizing policies deviating from established practice; without it, 23% of policies are rejected by operators despite passing accuracy thresholds. Across multiple facilities, LCP-controlled processes achieve process stability improvements of 28-45% over uncontrolled baselines with zero safety incidents.

cs.LG↗