arXiv subjects

Liu Leqi

Publications and source records attributed to Liu Leqi.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Inverse RL Helps Align AI by Imitating Humans

Language model alignment aims to make model behavior reliably reflect desirable properties such as helpfulness, safety, and instruction following. Current approaches typically use supervised fine-tuning on demonstrations or reinforcement learning with rewards derived from verifiers or human feedback. These paradigms leave an important question underexplored: can demonstrations alone yield an implicit reward that can be inspected, reused, and optimized on-policy to align AI? Motivated by inverse reinforcement learning, we introduce Projected Alignment Reward Estimated from Demonstrations (PARED). PARED recovers the implicit reward underlying expert demonstrations as an explicit function over a small set of response-level features, learned by a lightweight discriminator that separates demonstrations from the policy's own samples in this feature space. Unlike a standard reward model, PARED requires no task-specific preference annotations: demonstrations provide the task-specific supervision, which can be augmented with AI feedback as additional dimensions of supervision. Through experiments involving inference-time reranking and adversarial on-policy RL, we show that the recovered reward improves a base policy without a supervised loss and yields further gains when optimized after standard supervised fine-tuning. Additionally, we demonstrate that PARED can be used for contextual alignment, in which a single policy can be tailored to the preferences of different audiences.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

The Severance Problem: LLMs are Unaware of the Person Beyond the Prompt

Personal AI assistants have attracted significant interest for their potential to enhance everyday life by automating routine tasks, supporting consequential decisions, and assisting with everyday personal matters. Yet despite rapid recent technical advances, these assistants continue to exhibit undesirable behaviors, such as sycophancy, overconfidence, and hallucination. We argue that these failures stem from a fundamental limitation: language models lack an explicit representation of the person beyond the context they are given, which we term as the \textbf{Severance Problem}. Even with rich personal context and strong commonsense reasoning capabilities from the backbone model, current AI assistants fail to represent what remains unknown about the user. We propose a simple solution: incorporating structured ignorance into the language model context via the \textbf{Severance Schema}, which explicitly outlines dimensions along which the model lacks knowledge about the user, including physicality, temporality, consequences, continuity, multiplicity, and interiority. Empirically, across five model families, with the Severance Schema, the assistant consistently reduces sycophancy, harmful advice, and hallucination. Notably, models with the schema ask clarifying questions when information about the user is missing, rather than confidently extrapolating from incomplete user information.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

PRISM-X: Experiments on Personalised Fine-Tuning with Human and Simulated Users

Personalisation is a standard feature of conversational AI systems used by millions; yet, the efficacy of personalisation methods is often evaluated in academic research using simulated users rather than real people. This raises questions about how users and their simulated counterparts differ in interaction patterns and judgements, as well as whether personalisation is best achieved through context-based prompting or weight-based fine-tuning. Here, in a large-scale within-subject experiment, we re-recruit 530 participants from 52 countries two years after they gave their preferences in the PRISM dataset (Kirk et al., 2024) to evaluate personalised and non-personalised language models in blinded multi-turn conversations. We find preference fine-tuning (P-DPO, Li et al., 2024) significantly outperforms both a generic model and personalised prompting but adapting to individual preference data yields marginal gains over training on pooled preferences from a diverse population. Beyond length biases, fine-tuning amplifies sycophancy and relationship-seeking behaviours that people reward in short-term evaluations but which may introduce deleterious long-term consequences. Replicating this within-subject experiment with simulated users recovers aggregate model hierarchies but simulators perform far below human self-consistency baselines for individual judgements, discuss different topics, exhibit amplified position biases, and produce feedback dynamics that diverge from humans.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Filtered Reasoning Score: Evaluating Reasoning Quality on a Model's Most-Confident Traces

Should we trust Large Language Models (LLMs) with high accuracy? LLMs achieve high accuracy on reasoning benchmarks, but correctness alone does not reveal the quality of the reasoning used to produce it. This highlights a fundamental limitation of outcome-based evaluation: models may arrive at correct answers through flawed reasoning, and models with substantially different reasoning capabilities can nevertheless exhibit similar benchmark accuracy, for example due to memorization or over-optimization. In this paper, we ask: given existing benchmarks, can we move beyond outcome-based evaluation to assess the quality of reasoning itself? We seek metrics that (1) differentiate models with similar accuracy and (2) are robust to variations in input prompts and generation configurations. To this end, we propose a reasoning score that evaluates reasoning traces along dimensions such as faithfulness, coherence, utility, and factuality. A remaining question is how to aggregate this score across multiple sampled traces. Naively averaging them is undesirable, particularly in long-horizon settings, where the number of possible trajectories grows rapidly, and low-confidence correct traces are more likely to be coincidental. To address this, we introduce the Filtered Reasoning Score (FRS), which computes reasoning quality using only the top-K% most confident traces. Evaluating with FRS, models that are indistinguishable under standard accuracy exhibit significant differences in reasoning quality. Moreover, models with higher FRS on one benchmark tend to perform better on other reasoning benchmarks, in both accuracy and reasoning quality. Together, these findings suggest that FRS complements accuracy by capturing a model's transferable reasoning capabilities. We open source our evaluation codebase: https://github.com/Manas2006/benchmark_reproducibility.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating Stochasticity in Deep Research Agents

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) are promising agentic systems that gather and synthesize information to support research across domains such as financial decision-making, medical analysis, and scientific discovery. Despite recent improvements in research quality (e.g., outcome accuracy when ground truth is available), DRA system design often overlooks a critical barrier to real-world deployment: stochasticity. Under identical queries, repeated executions of DRAs can exhibit substantial variability in terms of research outcome, findings, and citations. In this paper, we formalize the study of stochasticity in DRAs by modeling them as information acquisition Markov Decision Processes. We introduce an evaluation framework that quantifies variance in the system and identify three sources of it: information acquisition, information compression, and inference. Through controlled experiments, we investigate how stochasticity from these modules across different decision steps influences the variance of DRA outputs. Our results show that reducing stochasticity can improve research output quality, with inference and early-stage stochasticity contributing the most to DRA output variance. Based on these findings, we propose strategies for mitigating stochasticity while maintaining output quality via structured output and ensemble-based query generation. Our experiments on DeepSearchQA show that our proposed mitigation methods reduce average stochasticity by 22% while maintaining high research quality.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Learning Robust Reasoning through Guided Adversarial Self-Play

Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) produces strong reasoning models, yet they can fail catastrophically when the conditioning context is fallible (e.g., corrupted chain-of-thought, misleading partial solutions, or mild input perturbations), since standard RLVR optimizes final-answer correctness only under clean conditioning. We introduce GASP (Guided Adversarial Self-Play), a robustification method that explicitly trains detect-and-repair capabilities using only outcome verification. Without human labels or external teachers, GASP forms an adversarial self-play game within a single model: a polluter learns to induce failure via locally coherent corruptions, while an agent learns to diagnose and recover under the same corrupted conditioning. To address the scarcity of successful recoveries early in training, we propose in-distribution repair guidance, an imitation term on self-generated repairs that increases recovery probability while preserving previously acquired capabilities. Across four open-weight models (1.5B--8B), GASP transforms strong-but-brittle reasoners into robust ones that withstand misleading and perturbed context while often improving clean accuracy. Further analysis shows that adversarial corruptions induce an effective curriculum, and in-distribution guidance enables rapid recovery learning with minimal representational drift.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Position: Thematic Analysis of Unstructured Clinical Transcripts with Large Language Models

This position paper examines how large language models (LLMs) can support thematic analysis of unstructured clinical transcripts, a widely used but resource-intensive method for uncovering patterns in patient and provider narratives. We conducted a systematic review of recent studies applying LLMs to thematic analysis, complemented by an interview with a practicing clinician. Our findings reveal that current approaches remain fragmented across multiple dimensions including types of thematic analysis, datasets, prompting strategies and models used, most notably in evaluation. Existing evaluation methods vary widely (from qualitative expert review to automatic similarity metrics), hindering progress and preventing meaningful benchmarking across studies. We argue that establishing standardized evaluation practices is critical for advancing the field. To this end, we propose an evaluation framework centered on three dimensions: validity, reliability, and interpretability.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

SFT-TA: Supervised Fine-Tuned Agents in Multi-Agent LLMs for Automated Inductive Thematic Analysis

Thematic Analysis (TA) is a widely used qualitative method that provides a structured yet flexible framework for identifying and reporting patterns in clinical interview transcripts. However, manual thematic analysis is time-consuming and limits scalability. Recent advances in LLMs offer a pathway to automate thematic analysis, but alignment with human results remains limited. To address these limitations, we propose SFT-TA, an automated thematic analysis framework that embeds supervised fine-tuned (SFT) agents within a multi-agent system. Our framework outperforms existing frameworks and the gpt-4o baseline in alignment with human reference themes. We observed that SFT agents alone may underperform, but achieve better results than the baseline when embedded within a multi-agent system. Our results highlight that embedding SFT agents in specific roles within a multi-agent system is a promising pathway to improve alignment with desired outputs for thematic analysis.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

ExPO: Unlocking Hard Reasoning with Self-Explanation-Guided Reinforcement Learning

Self-improvement via RL often fails on complex reasoning tasks because GRPO-style post-training methods rely on the model's initial ability to generate positive samples. Without guided exploration, these approaches merely reinforce what the model already knows (distribution-sharpening) rather than enabling the model to solve problems where it initially generates no correct solutions. To unlock reasoning ability in such settings, the model must explore new reasoning trajectories beyond its current output distribution. Such exploration requires access to sufficiently good positive samples to guide the learning. While expert demonstrations seem like a natural solution, we find that they are often ineffective in RL post-training. Instead, we identify two key properties of effective positive samples: they should (1) be likely under the current policy, and (2) increase the model's likelihood of predicting the correct answer. Based on these insights, we propose $\textbf{Self-Explanation Policy Optimization (ExPO)}$-a simple and modular framework that generates such samples by conditioning on the ground-truth answer. It can be integrated with popular RL training methods like GRPO and DPO. ExPO enables efficient exploration and guides the model to produce reasoning trajectories more aligned with its policy than expert-written CoTs, while ensuring higher quality than its own (incorrect) samples. Experiments show that ExPO improves both learning efficiency and final performance on reasoning benchmarks, surpassing expert-demonstration-based methods in challenging settings such as MATH level-5, where the model initially struggles the most. Code is available at https://github.com/HumainLab/ExPO_rl_reasoning_by_explanation .

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

AgentDistill: Training-Free Agent Distillation with Generalizable MCP Boxes

While knowledge distillation has become a mature field for compressing large language models (LLMs) into smaller ones by aligning their outputs or internal representations, the distillation of LLM-based agents, which involve planning, memory, and tool use, remains relatively underexplored. Existing agent distillation methods typically replay full teacher trajectories or imitate step-by-step teacher tool usage, but they often struggle to train student agents to dynamically plan and act in novel environments. We propose AgentDistill, a novel, training-free agent distillation framework that enables efficient and scalable knowledge transfer via direct reuse of Model-Context-Protocols (MCPs), which are structured and reusable task-solving modules autonomously generated by teacher agents. The reuse of these distilled MCPs enables student agents to generalize their capabilities across domains and solve new problems with minimal supervision or human intervention. Experiments on biomedical and mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that our distilled student agents, built on small language models, can achieve performance comparable to advanced systems using large LLMs such as OctoTools (GPT-4o), highlighting the effectiveness of our framework in building scalable and cost-efficient intelligent agents.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Hypothesis Testing for Quantifying LLM-Human Misalignment in Multiple Choice Settings

As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly appear in social science research (e.g., economics and marketing), it becomes crucial to assess how well these models replicate human behavior. In this work, using hypothesis testing, we present a quantitative framework to assess the misalignment between LLM-simulated and actual human behaviors in multiple-choice survey settings. This framework allows us to determine in a principled way whether a specific language model can effectively simulate human opinions, decision-making, and general behaviors represented through multiple-choice options. We applied this framework to a popular language model for simulating people's opinions in various public surveys and found that this model is ill-suited for simulating the tested sub-populations (e.g., across different races, ages, and incomes) for contentious questions. This raises questions about the alignment of this language model with the tested populations, highlighting the need for new practices in using LLMs for social science studies beyond naive simulations of human subjects.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

EquivaMap: Leveraging LLMs for Automatic Equivalence Checking of Optimization Formulations

A fundamental problem in combinatorial optimization is identifying equivalent formulations. Despite the growing need for automated equivalence checks -- driven, for example, by optimization copilots, which generate problem formulations from natural language descriptions -- current approaches rely on simple heuristics that fail to reliably check formulation equivalence. Inspired by Karp reductions, in this work we introduce Quasi-Karp equivalence, a formal criterion for determining when two optimization formulations are equivalent based on the existence of a mapping between their decision variables. We propose EquivaMap, a framework that leverages large language models to automatically discover such mappings for scalable, reliable equivalence checking, with a verification stage that ensures mapped solutions preserve feasibility and optimality without additional solver calls. To evaluate our approach, we construct EquivaFormulation, the first open-source dataset of equivalent optimization formulations, generated by applying transformations such as adding slack variables or valid inequalities to existing formulations. Empirically, EquivaMap significantly outperforms existing methods, achieving substantial improvements in correctly identifying formulation equivalence.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Linear Representation Transferability Hypothesis: Leveraging Small Models to Steer Large Models

It has been hypothesized that neural networks with similar architectures trained on similar data learn shared representations relevant to the learning task. We build on this idea by extending the conceptual framework where representations learned across models trained on the same data can be expressed as linear combinations of a \emph{universal} set of basis features. These basis features underlie the learning task itself and remain consistent across models, regardless of scale. From this framework, we propose the \textbf{Linear Representation Transferability (LRT)} Hypothesis -- that there exists an affine transformation between the representation spaces of different models. To test this hypothesis, we learn affine mappings between the hidden states of models of different sizes and evaluate whether steering vectors -- directions in hidden state space associated with specific model behaviors -- retain their semantic effect when transferred from small to large language models using the learned mappings. We find strong empirical evidence that such affine mappings can preserve steering behaviors. These findings suggest that representations learned by small models can be used to guide the behavior of large models, and that the LRT hypothesis may be a promising direction on understanding representation alignment across model scales.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Learning Composable Chains-of-Thought

A common approach for teaching large language models (LLMs) to reason is to train on chain-of-thought (CoT) traces of in-distribution reasoning problems, but such annotated data is costly to obtain for every problem of interest. We want reasoning models to generalize beyond their training distribution, and ideally to generalize compositionally: combine atomic reasoning skills to solve harder, unseen reasoning tasks. We take a step towards compositional generalization of reasoning skills when addressing a target compositional task that has no labeled CoT data. We find that simply training models on CoT data of atomic tasks leads to limited generalization, but minimally modifying CoT formats of constituent atomic tasks to be composable can lead to improvements. We can train "atomic CoT" models on the atomic tasks with Composable CoT data and combine them with multitask learning or model merging for better zero-shot performance on the target compositional task. Such a combined model can be further bootstrapped on a small amount of compositional data using rejection sampling fine-tuning (RFT). Results on string operations and natural language skill compositions show that training LLMs on Composable CoT outperforms multitask learning and continued fine-tuning baselines within a given training data budget.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Teaching with Lies: Curriculum DPO on Synthetic Negatives for Hallucination Detection

Aligning large language models (LLMs) to accurately detect hallucinations remains a significant challenge due to the sophisticated nature of hallucinated text. Recognizing that hallucinated samples typically exhibit higher deceptive quality than traditional negative samples, we use these carefully engineered hallucinations as negative examples in the DPO alignment procedure. Our method incorporates a curriculum learning strategy, gradually transitioning the training from easier samples, identified based on the greatest reduction in probability scores from independent fact checking models, to progressively harder ones. This structured difficulty scaling ensures stable and incremental learning. Experimental evaluation demonstrates that our HaluCheck models, trained with curriculum DPO approach and high quality negative samples, significantly improves model performance across various metrics, achieving improvements of upto 24% on difficult benchmarks like MedHallu and HaluEval. Additionally, HaluCheck models demonstrate robustness in zero-shot settings, significantly outperforming larger state-of-the-art models across various benchmarks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

A Common Pitfall of Margin-based Language Model Alignment: Gradient Entanglement

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has become the predominant approach for language model (LM) alignment. At its core, RLHF uses a margin-based loss for preference optimization, specifying ideal LM behavior only by the difference between preferred and dispreferred responses. In this paper, we identify a common pitfall of margin-based methods -- the under-specification of ideal LM behavior on preferred and dispreferred responses individually, which leads to two unintended consequences as the margin increases: (1) The probability of dispreferred (e.g., unsafe) responses may increase, resulting in potential safety alignment failures. (2) The probability of preferred responses may decrease, even when those responses are ideal. We demystify the reasons behind these problematic behaviors: margin-based losses couple the change in the preferred probability to the gradient of the dispreferred one, and vice versa, often preventing the preferred probability from increasing while the dispreferred one decreases, and thus causing a synchronized increase or decrease in both probabilities. We term this effect, inherent in margin-based objectives, gradient entanglement. Formally, we derive conditions for general margin-based alignment objectives under which gradient entanglement becomes concerning: the inner product of the gradients of preferred and dispreferred log-probabilities is large relative to the individual gradient norms. We theoretically investigate why such inner products can be large when aligning language models and empirically validate our findings. Empirical implications of our framework extend to explaining important differences in the training dynamics of various preference optimization algorithms, and suggesting potential algorithm designs to mitigate the under-specification issue of margin-based methods and thereby improving language model alignment.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Prompting Fairness: Integrating Causality to Debias Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs), despite their remarkable capabilities, are susceptible to generating biased and discriminatory responses. As LLMs increasingly influence high-stakes decision-making (e.g., hiring and healthcare), mitigating these biases becomes critical. In this work, we propose a causality-guided debiasing framework to tackle social biases, aiming to reduce the objectionable dependence between LLMs' decisions and the social information in the input. Our framework introduces a novel perspective to identify how social information can affect an LLM's decision through different causal pathways. Leveraging these causal insights, we outline principled prompting strategies that regulate these pathways through selection mechanisms. This framework not only unifies existing prompting-based debiasing techniques, but also opens up new directions for reducing bias by encouraging the model to prioritize fact-based reasoning over reliance on biased social cues. We validate our framework through extensive experiments on real-world datasets across multiple domains, demonstrating its effectiveness in debiasing LLM decisions, even with only black-box access to the model.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Personalized Language Modeling from Personalized Human Feedback

Personalized large language models (LLMs) are designed to tailor responses to individual user preferences. While Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is a commonly used framework for aligning LLMs with human preferences, vanilla RLHF assumes that all human preferences share the same distribution, preventing fine-tuned LLMs from generating personalized content when user preferences are diverse. In this work, we propose Personalized-RLHF (P-RLHF), an efficient framework that utilizes a lightweight user model to capture individual user preferences and jointly learns the user model and the personalized LLM from human feedback. P-RLHF exhibits the following three characteristics: (1) It enables an LLM to generate personalized content and scale efficiently with growing number of users. (2) It handles both explicit user preferences described as textual input and implicit user preferences encoded in the feedback data. (3) It eliminates the need for users to fully articulate their preferences, which are normally needed for prompting LLMs to generate personalized content yet are often impractical to obtain in real-world scenarios. Our experimental results show that personalized LLMs trained using P-RLHF generate responses that are more closely aligned with individual user preferences, outperforming vanilla, non-personalized RLHF and prompting-based personalization approaches across different tasks. We opensource our code at https://github.com/HumainLab/Personalized_RLHF.

cs.CL↗