arXiv subjects

Zachary C. Lipton

Publications and source records attributed to Zachary C. Lipton.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Reporting Practice Matters: The Impact of Reference Choice on Chest X-ray Report Evaluation

Radiologists follow heterogeneous reporting practices. Two radiologists examining the same image and identifying the same clinical findings might nevertheless compose superficially distinct reports, varying in terminology, shorthand, formatting, and level of detail. These variations in reporting norms represent an under-appreciated obstacle in efforts to evaluate AI-based radiology report generation (RRG) models, where machine-generated reports are typically assessed based on their concordance with human-generated references. In this paper, we quantify the sensitivity of established evaluation metrics to variations in reporting practices, revealing impacts large enough to alter the rankings of models. We introduce a radiologist-informed taxonomy of variations in radiology reporting practice and a method (ReRef) that rewrites reference reports along the axes of our taxonomy while preserving clinical interpretation. For instance, when comparing the performance of nine RRG models on MIMIC-CXR using RadCliQ-v1, condensing the discussion of normal findings in the reference reports causes Libra to drop from first to second place while CheXOne rises from third to first. Our results suggest that many current metrics fail to decouple clinical interpretation from conformity to reporting practices and that choosing the ``right'' references that accurately reflect the desired reporting practices can be important in practice. To support future research, we release MIMIC-CXR-Ext-ReRef, a radiologist-validated dataset of 120 (original, alternative) reference report pairs derived from MIMIC-CXR.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

No Free Lunch: Non-Asymptotic Analysis of Prediction-Powered Inference

Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) is a popular strategy for combining gold-standard and possibly noisy pseudo-labels to perform statistical estimation. Prior work has shown an asymptotic \enquote{free lunch} for PPI++, an adaptive form of PPI, showing that the \textit{asymptotic} variance of PPI++ is always less than or equal to the variance obtained from using gold-standard labels alone. Notably, this result holds \textit{regardless of the quality of the pseudo-labels}. In this work, we demystify this result by conducting an exact finite-sample analysis of the estimation error of PPI++ on the mean estimation problem. We give a \enquote{no free lunch} result, characterizing the settings (and sample sizes) where PPI++ has provably worse estimation error than using gold-standard labels alone. Specifically, PPI++ will outperform if and only if the correlation between pseudo- and gold-standard is above a certain level that depends on the number of labeled samples ($n$). In some cases our results simplify considerably: For Gaussian data, for instance, the correlation must be at least $1/\sqrt{n - 2}$ in order to see improvement. More broadly, by providing exact non-asymptotic expressions for the variance of PPI++ under sample splitting, we aim to empower practitioners to transparently reason about the benefits of PPI++ in specific applications. In experiments, we illustrate that our theoretical findings hold on real-world datasets.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2025

OpenUnlearning: Accelerating LLM Unlearning via Unified Benchmarking of Methods and Metrics

Robust unlearning is crucial for safely deploying large language models (LLMs) in environments where data privacy, model safety, and regulatory compliance must be ensured. Yet the task is inherently challenging, partly due to difficulties in reliably measuring whether unlearning has truly occurred. Moreover, fragmentation in current methodologies and inconsistent evaluation metrics hinder comparative analysis and reproducibility. To unify and accelerate research efforts, we introduce OpenUnlearning, a standardized and extensible framework designed explicitly for benchmarking both LLM unlearning methods and metrics. OpenUnlearning integrates 13 unlearning algorithms and 16 diverse evaluations across 3 leading benchmarks (TOFU, MUSE, and WMDP) and also enables analyses of forgetting behaviors across 450+ checkpoints we publicly release. Leveraging OpenUnlearning, we propose a novel meta-evaluation benchmark focused specifically on assessing the faithfulness and robustness of evaluation metrics themselves. We also benchmark diverse unlearning methods and provide a comparative analysis against an extensive evaluation suite. Overall, we establish a clear, community-driven pathway toward rigorous development in LLM unlearning research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Valid Inference with Imperfect Synthetic Data

Predictions and generations from large language models are increasingly being explored as an aid in limited data regimes, such as in computational social science and human subjects research. While prior technical work has mainly explored the potential to use model-predicted labels for unlabeled data in a principled manner, there is increasing interest in using large language models to generate entirely new synthetic samples (e.g., synthetic simulations), such as in responses to surveys. However, it remains unclear by what means practitioners can combine such data with real data and yet produce statistically valid conclusions upon them. In this paper, we introduce a new estimator based on generalized method of moments, providing a hyperparameter-free solution with strong theoretical guarantees to address this challenge. Intriguingly, we find that interactions between the moment residuals of synthetic data and those of real data (i.e., when they are predictive of each other) can greatly improve estimates of the target parameter. We validate the finite-sample performance of our estimator across different tasks in computational social science applications, demonstrating large empirical gains.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Expert Routing with Synthetic Data for Continual Learning

In many real-world settings, regulations and economic incentives permit the sharing of models but not data across institutional boundaries. In such scenarios, practitioners might hope to adapt models to new domains, without losing performance on previous domains (so-called catastrophic forgetting). While any single model may struggle to achieve this goal, learning an ensemble of domain-specific experts offers the potential to adapt more closely to each individual institution. However, a core challenge in this context is determining which expert to deploy at test time. In this paper, we propose Generate to Discriminate (G2D), a domain-incremental continual learning method that leverages synthetic data to train a domain-discriminator that routes samples at inference time to the appropriate expert. Surprisingly, we find that leveraging synthetic data in this capacity is more effective than using the samples to \textit{directly} train the downstream classifier (the more common approach to leveraging synthetic data in the lifelong learning literature). We observe that G2D outperforms competitive domain-incremental learning methods on tasks in both vision and language modalities, providing a new perspective on the use of synthetic data in the lifelong learning literature.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

The Limited Impact of Medical Adaptation of Large Language and Vision-Language Models

Several recent works seek to adapt general-purpose large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) for medical applications through continued pretraining on publicly available biomedical corpora. These works typically claim that such domain-adaptive pretraining improves performance on various downstream medical tasks, such as answering medical exam questions. In this paper, we compare ten "medical" LLMs and two VLMs against their corresponding base models, arriving at a different conclusion: all medical VLMs and nearly all medical LLMs fail to consistently improve over their base models in the zero-/few-shot prompting and supervised fine-tuning regimes for medical question answering (QA). For instance, on clinical-note-based QA tasks in the 3-shot setting, medical LLMs outperform their base models in only 26.7% of cases, reach a (statistical) tie in 16.7% of cases, and perform significantly worse in the remaining 56.7% of cases. Our conclusions are based on (i) comparing each medical model directly against its base model; (ii) optimizing the prompts for each model separately in zero-/few-shot prompting; and (iii) accounting for statistical uncertainty in comparisons. Our findings suggest that state-of-the-art general-domain models may already exhibit strong medical knowledge and reasoning capabilities, and offer recommendations to strengthen the conclusions of future studies.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Failure Modes of LLMs for Causal Reasoning on Narratives

The ability to robustly identify causal relationships is essential for autonomous decision-making and adaptation to novel scenarios. However, accurately inferring causal structure requires integrating both world knowledge and abstract logical reasoning. In this work, we investigate the interaction between these two capabilities through the representative task of causal reasoning over narratives. Through controlled synthetic, semi-synthetic, and real-world experiments, we find that state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) often rely on superficial heuristics -- for example, inferring causality from event order or recalling memorized world knowledge without attending to context. Furthermore, we show that simple reformulations of the task can elicit more robust reasoning behavior. Our evaluation spans a range of causal structures, from linear chains to complex graphs involving colliders and forks. These findings uncover systematic patterns in how LLMs perform causal reasoning and lay the groundwork for developing methods that better align LLM behavior with principled causal inference.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

LLM-Select: Feature Selection with Large Language Models

In this paper, we demonstrate a surprising capability of large language models (LLMs): given only input feature names and a description of a prediction task, they are capable of selecting the most predictive features, with performance rivaling the standard tools of data science. Remarkably, these models exhibit this capacity across various query mechanisms. For example, we zero-shot prompt an LLM to output a numerical importance score for a feature (e.g., "blood pressure") in predicting an outcome of interest (e.g., "heart failure"), with no additional context. In particular, we find that the latest models, such as GPT-4, can consistently identify the most predictive features regardless of the query mechanism and across various prompting strategies. We illustrate these findings through extensive experiments on real-world data, where we show that LLM-based feature selection consistently achieves strong performance competitive with data-driven methods such as the LASSO, despite never having looked at the downstream training data. Our findings suggest that LLMs may be useful not only for selecting the best features for training but also for deciding which features to collect in the first place. This could benefit practitioners in domains like healthcare and the social sciences, where collecting high-quality data comes at a high cost.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

AI Mentors for Student Projects: Spotting Early Issues in Computer Science Proposals

When executed well, project-based learning (PBL) engages students' intrinsic motivation, encourages students to learn far beyond a course's limited curriculum, and prepares students to think critically and maturely about the skills and tools at their disposal. However, educators experience mixed results when using PBL in their classrooms: some students thrive with minimal guidance and others flounder. Early evaluation of project proposals could help educators determine which students need more support, yet evaluating project proposals and student aptitude is time-consuming and difficult to scale. In this work, we design, implement, and conduct an initial user study (n = 36) for a software system that collects project proposals and aptitude information to support educators in determining whether a student is ready to engage with PBL. We find that (1) users perceived the system as helpful for writing project proposals and identifying tools and technologies to learn more about, (2) educator ratings indicate that users with less technical experience in the project topic tend to write lower-quality project proposals, and (3) GPT-4o's ratings show agreement with educator ratings. While the prospect of using LLMs to rate the quality of students' project proposals is promising, its long-term effectiveness strongly hinges on future efforts at characterizing indicators that reliably predict students' success and motivation to learn.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

GenAudit: Fixing Factual Errors in Language Model Outputs with Evidence

LLMs can generate factually incorrect statements even when provided access to reference documents. Such errors can be dangerous in high-stakes applications (e.g., document-grounded QA for healthcare or finance). We present GenAudit -- a tool intended to assist fact-checking LLM responses for document-grounded tasks. GenAudit suggests edits to the LLM response by revising or removing claims that are not supported by the reference document, and also presents evidence from the reference for facts that do appear to have support. We train models to execute these tasks, and design an interactive interface to present suggested edits and evidence to users. Comprehensive evaluation by human raters shows that GenAudit can detect errors in 8 different LLM outputs when summarizing documents from diverse domains. User studies demonstrate that using GenAudit can substantially improve the performance of humans at finding errors in LLM-generated summaries. We release our tool (GenAudit) and fact-checking model for public use.

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↗

arXiv2024

Auditing Fairness under Unobserved Confounding

Many definitions of fairness or inequity involve unobservable causal quantities that cannot be directly estimated without strong assumptions. For instance, it is particularly difficult to estimate notions of fairness that rely on hard-to-measure concepts such as risk (e.g., quantifying whether patients at the same risk level have equal probability of treatment, regardless of group membership). Such measurements of risk can be accurately obtained when no unobserved confounders have jointly influenced past decisions and outcomes. However, in the real world, this assumption rarely holds. In this paper, we show that, surprisingly, one can still compute meaningful bounds on treatment rates for high-risk individuals (i.e., conditional on their true, \textit{unobserved} negative outcome), even when entirely eliminating or relaxing the assumption that we observe all relevant risk factors used by decision makers. We use the fact that in many real-world settings (e.g., the release of a new treatment) we have data from prior to any allocation to derive unbiased estimates of risk. This result enables us to audit unfair outcomes of existing decision-making systems in a principled manner. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework with a real-world study of Paxlovid allocation, provably identifying that observed racial inequity cannot be explained by unobserved confounders of the same strength as important observed covariates.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Medical Adaptation of Large Language and Vision-Language Models: Are We Making Progress?

Several recent works seek to develop foundation models specifically for medical applications, adapting general-purpose large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) via continued pretraining on publicly available biomedical corpora. These works typically claim that such domain-adaptive pretraining (DAPT) improves performance on downstream medical tasks, such as answering medical licensing exam questions. In this paper, we compare seven public "medical" LLMs and two VLMs against their corresponding base models, arriving at a different conclusion: all medical VLMs and nearly all medical LLMs fail to consistently improve over their base models in the zero-/few-shot prompting regime for medical question-answering (QA) tasks. For instance, across the tasks and model pairs we consider in the 3-shot setting, medical LLMs only outperform their base models in 12.1% of cases, reach a (statistical) tie in 49.8% of cases, and are significantly worse than their base models in the remaining 38.2% of cases. Our conclusions are based on (i) comparing each medical model head-to-head, directly against the corresponding base model; (ii) optimizing the prompts for each model separately; and (iii) accounting for statistical uncertainty in comparisons. While these basic practices are not consistently adopted in the literature, our ablations show that they substantially impact conclusions. Our findings suggest that state-of-the-art general-domain models may already exhibit strong medical knowledge and reasoning capabilities, and offer recommendations to strengthen the conclusions of future studies.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Rethinking LLM Memorization through the Lens of Adversarial Compression

Large language models (LLMs) trained on web-scale datasets raise substantial concerns regarding permissible data usage. One major question is whether these models "memorize" all their training data or they integrate many data sources in some way more akin to how a human would learn and synthesize information. The answer hinges, to a large degree, on how we define memorization. In this work, we propose the Adversarial Compression Ratio (ACR) as a metric for assessing memorization in LLMs. A given string from the training data is considered memorized if it can be elicited by a prompt (much) shorter than the string itself -- in other words, if these strings can be "compressed" with the model by computing adversarial prompts of fewer tokens. The ACR overcomes the limitations of existing notions of memorization by (i) offering an adversarial view of measuring memorization, especially for monitoring unlearning and compliance; and (ii) allowing for the flexibility to measure memorization for arbitrary strings at a reasonably low compute. Our definition serves as a practical tool for determining when model owners may be violating terms around data usage, providing a potential legal tool and a critical lens through which to address such scenarios.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Online Data Collection for Efficient Semiparametric Inference

While many works have studied statistical data fusion, they typically assume that the various datasets are given in advance. However, in practice, estimation requires difficult data collection decisions like determining the available data sources, their costs, and how many samples to collect from each source. Moreover, this process is often sequential because the data collected at a given time can improve collection decisions in the future. In our setup, given access to multiple data sources and budget constraints, the agent must sequentially decide which data source to query to efficiently estimate a target parameter. We formalize this task using Online Moment Selection, a semiparametric framework that applies to any parameter identified by a set of moment conditions. Interestingly, the optimal budget allocation depends on the (unknown) true parameters. We present two online data collection policies, Explore-then-Commit and Explore-then-Greedy, that use the parameter estimates at a given time to optimally allocate the remaining budget in the future steps. We prove that both policies achieve zero regret (assessed by asymptotic MSE) relative to an oracle policy. We empirically validate our methods on both synthetic and real-world causal effect estimation tasks, demonstrating that the online data collection policies outperform their fixed counterparts.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2024

The Fragility of Fairness: Causal Sensitivity Analysis for Fair Machine Learning

Fairness metrics are a core tool in the fair machine learning literature (FairML), used to determine that ML models are, in some sense, "fair". Real-world data, however, are typically plagued by various measurement biases and other violated assumptions, which can render fairness assessments meaningless. We adapt tools from causal sensitivity analysis to the FairML context, providing a general framework which (1) accommodates effectively any combination of fairness metric and bias that can be posed in the "oblivious setting"; (2) allows researchers to investigate combinations of biases, resulting in non-linear sensitivity; and (3) enables flexible encoding of domain-specific constraints and assumptions. Employing this framework, we analyze the sensitivity of the most common parity metrics under 3 varieties of classifier across 14 canonical fairness datasets. Our analysis reveals the striking fragility of fairness assessments to even minor dataset biases. We show that causal sensitivity analysis provides a powerful and necessary toolkit for gauging the informativeness of parity metric evaluations. Our repository is available here: https://github.com/Jakefawkes/fragile_fair.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

A Unified Causal Framework for Auditing Recommender Systems for Ethical Concerns

As recommender systems become widely deployed in different domains, they increasingly influence their users' beliefs and preferences. Auditing recommender systems is crucial as it not only ensures the continuous improvement of recommendation algorithms but also safeguards against potential issues like biases and ethical concerns. In this paper, we view recommender system auditing from a causal lens and provide a general recipe for defining auditing metrics. Under this general causal auditing framework, we categorize existing auditing metrics and identify gaps in them -- notably, the lack of metrics for auditing user agency while accounting for the multi-step dynamics of the recommendation process. We leverage our framework and propose two classes of such metrics:future- and past-reacheability and stability, that measure the ability of a user to influence their own and other users' recommendations, respectively. We provide both a gradient-based and a black-box approach for computing these metrics, allowing the auditor to compute them under different levels of access to the recommender system. In our experiments, we demonstrate the efficacy of methods for computing the proposed metrics and inspect the design of recommender systems through these proposed metrics.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Red-Teaming for Generative AI: Silver Bullet or Security Theater?

In response to rising concerns surrounding the safety, security, and trustworthiness of Generative AI (GenAI) models, practitioners and regulators alike have pointed to AI red-teaming as a key component of their strategies for identifying and mitigating these risks. However, despite AI red-teaming's central role in policy discussions and corporate messaging, significant questions remain about what precisely it means, what role it can play in regulation, and how it relates to conventional red-teaming practices as originally conceived in the field of cybersecurity. In this work, we identify recent cases of red-teaming activities in the AI industry and conduct an extensive survey of relevant research literature to characterize the scope, structure, and criteria for AI red-teaming practices. Our analysis reveals that prior methods and practices of AI red-teaming diverge along several axes, including the purpose of the activity (which is often vague), the artifact under evaluation, the setting in which the activity is conducted (e.g., actors, resources, and methods), and the resulting decisions it informs (e.g., reporting, disclosure, and mitigation). In light of our findings, we argue that while red-teaming may be a valuable big-tent idea for characterizing GenAI harm mitigations, and that industry may effectively apply red-teaming and other strategies behind closed doors to safeguard AI, gestures towards red-teaming (based on public definitions) as a panacea for every possible risk verge on security theater. To move toward a more robust toolbox of evaluations for generative AI, we synthesize our recommendations into a question bank meant to guide and scaffold future AI red-teaming practices.

cs.CY↗