Value Alignment

Entity alignment (EA) is critical for knowledge graph (KG) fusion. Existing EA models lack transferability and are incapable of aligning unseen KGs without retraining. While using graph foundation models (GFMs) offer a solution, we find that directly adapting GFMs to EA remains largely ineffective. This stems from a critical "reasoning horizon gap": unlike link prediction in GFMs, EA necessitates capturing long-range dependencies across sparse and heterogeneous KG structuresTo address this challenge, we propose a EA foundation model driven by a parallel encoding strategy. We utilize seed EA pairs as local anchors to guide the information flow, initializing and encoding two parallel streams simultaneously. This facilitates anchor-conditioned message passing and significantly shortens the inference trajectory by leveraging local structural proximity instead of global search. Additionally, we incorporate a merged relation graph to model global dependencies and a learnable interaction module for precise matching. Extensive experiments verify the effectiveness of our framework, highlighting its strong generalizability to unseen KGs.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) are emerging as promising socio-collaborative companions for emotional and cognitive support. However, existing systems frequently suffer from persona collapse, where agents revert to generic, homogenized assistant behaviors, and social sycophancy, where agents produce redundant, non-constructive dialogue. We propose MASCOT, a multi-agent framework for multi-perspective socio-collaborative companions. MASCOT introduces a novel bi-level optimization strategy to harmonize individual and collective behaviors: 1) Persona-Aware Behavioral Alignment, an RLAIF-driven pipeline that finetunes individual agents for agent-specific identities; and 2) Collaborative Dialogue Optimization, a group-level adaptation process that promotes complementary, diverse, and productive discourse. We evaluate MASCOT using human-grounded contexts drawn across both in-domain and out-of-domain (OOD) settings against state-of-the-art baselines. MASCOT improves persona consistency by up to +14.1 and social contribution by up to +10.6. A broad evaluation suite, including human evaluation, multiple LLM judges, three-way comparisons, and automatic metrics, further shows that MASCOT produces more role-consistent and less redundant multi-agent dialogue.

Quantization is widely adopted to reduce the computational cost of large language models (LLMs); however, its implications for fairness and safety, particularly in dynamic quantization and multilingual contexts, remain underexplored. In this work, we conduct a systematic study of how static and dynamic quantization methods impact fairness and safety across benchmarks measuring intrinsic and extrinsic bias and safety alignment. For fairness, we evaluate English, French, Dutch, Spanish, and Turkish; for safety, we focus on English, Korean, and Arabic. Our findings reveal that quantization consistently degrades fairness and safety, with dynamic methods demonstrating greater stability than static ones. Moreover, fairness degradation varies across languages, while safety deterioration is especially pronounced in non-English settings. To address these risks, we introduce Critical Weight Protection, a novel technique that identifies and preserves fairness- and safety-critical weights during quantization. This approach effectively mitigates bias and safety deterioration without costly retraining or alignment, maintaining trustworthiness while retaining efficiency.

Building NLP systems for subjective tasks requires one to ensure their alignment to contrasting human values. We propose the MultiCalibrated Subjective Task Learner framework (MC-STL), which clusters annotations into identifiable human value clusters by three approaches (similarity of annotator rationales, expert-value taxonomies or rater's sociocultural descriptors) and calibrates predictions for each value cluster by learning cluster-specific embeddings. We demonstrate MC-STL on several subjective learning settings, including ordinal, binary, and preference learning predictions, and evaluate it on multiple datasets covering toxic chatbot conversations, offensive social media posts, and human preference alignment. The results show that MC-STL consistently outperforms the baselines that ignore the latent value structure of the annotations, delivering gains in discrimination, value-specific calibration, and disagreement-aware metrics.

Despite remarkable capability in multi-modal understanding, deploying Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in open-ended conversational scenarios introduces safety risks that remain poorly addressed by existing alignment methods. Unlike simple malicious visual question and answer (VQA) pairs , multi-turn interactions enable adversaries to incrementally reconstruct harmful intent across dialogues, progressively bypassing safety constraints in ways that are difficult to detect at any individual turn. Meanwhile, conventional reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) approaches are unsuitable for this situation: designed primarily for VQA tasks, they neither capture cross-turn risk dynamics nor scale efficiently without costly manual preference annotation. To close this gap, we introduce \textbf{MINT-Safe}, an open-source visual multi-turn training dataset comprising 11,270 multi-image dialogues and 500 refusal VQA pairs, constructed via multi-agent interaction with text-to-image (T2I) tool-call augmentation. Building on MINT-Safe, we propose \textbf{TAD-Align}, a dialogue safety alignment framework centered on a turn-aware dual-objective reward function. Rather than treating all dialogue turns uniformly, TAD-Align leverages rollout-based safety score variance to dynamically identify turns where the model exhibits inconsistent safety behavior, and adaptively up-weights these turns during optimization. Experiments on Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct and LLaVA-NeXT-7B demonstrate reductions of over 10% in Attack Success Rate (ASR), alongside improvements of at least 8% in harmlessness and 13% in helpfulness on multi-modal multi-turn safety benchmarks, while preserving general model capabilities.

Current safety evaluations of large language models (LLMs) create a dangerous illusion of universal protection by aggregating harms under generic categories such as "Identity Hate", obscuring vulnerabilities toward specific populations. In this work, we expose the Selective Safety Trap: a systemic failure mode where models robustly defend specific populations while leaving underrepresented communities highly vulnerable to identical adversarial attacks. To systematically audit this phenomenon, we introduce MiJaBench, a bilingual (English-Portuguese) adversarial benchmark comprising 43,961 controlled jailbreaking prompts across 16 minority groups. By evaluating 14 state-of-the-art LLMs on MiJaBench, we curate 615,454 prompt-response pairs that compose MiJaBench-Align, revealing that safety alignment is not a uniform semantic capability but a demographic hierarchy, with defense rates fluctuating by up to 42% within the same model solely based on the target group. This disparity persists across architectures and languages and is amplified by scaling, indicating that current alignment methods learn group-specific safeguards rather than a generalized notion of harm. Through targeted direct preference optimization (DPO) on a 1B-parameter baseline, we achieve strong zero-shot safety generalizations to entirely unseen demographics and complex attack strategies. We release all datasets and scripts to provide the community with a concrete pathway toward equitable, transferable safety alignment.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate decision-making tasks involving personal data sharing, where privacy concerns and prosocial motivations can push choices in opposite directions. Existing evaluations often measure privacy-related attitudes or sharing intentions in isolation, which makes it difficult to determine whether a model's expressed values jointly predict its downstream data-sharing actions as in real human behaviors. We introduce a context-based assessment protocol that sequentially administers standardized questionnaires for privacy attitudes, prosocialness, and acceptance of data sharing within a bounded, history-carrying session. To evaluate value-action alignments under competing attitudes, we use multi-group structural equation modeling (MGSEM) to identify relations from privacy concerns and prosocialness to data sharing. We propose Value-Action Alignment Rate (VAAR), a human-referenced directional agreement metric that aggregates path-level evidence for expected signs. Across multiple LLMs, we observe stable but model-specific Privacy-PSA-AoDS profiles, and substantial heterogeneity in value-action alignment.

Aligning language models to qualitative behavioral traits, such as human-likeness, remains difficult because they are hard to define, measure, and optimize. As a result, improvements in human-like behavior are largely driven by scale or broad supervised training, rather than targeted alignment. We introduce Human Aligning LLMs (HAL), a framework for aligning language models to conversational human-likeness using an interpretable, data-driven reward. HAL derives explicit conversational traits from contrastive dialogue data, combines them into a compact scalar score, and uses this score as a transparent reward signal for alignment with standard preference optimization methods. Using this approach, we align models of varying sizes without affecting their overall performance. In large-scale Chatbot Arena-style human evaluations, a model aligned with HAL is more frequently perceived as human-like in conversation. Because HAL operates over explicit, interpretable traits, it enables inspection of alignment behavior and diagnosis of unintended effects. More broadly, HAL demonstrates how soft, qualitative properties of language--previously outside the scope for alignment--can be made measurable and aligned in an interpretable and explainable way.

In this paper, we study the private and robust alignment of language models from a theoretical perspective by establishing upper bounds on the suboptimality gap in both offline and online settings. We consider preference labels subject to privacy constraints and/or adversarial corruption, and analyze two distinct interplays between them: privacy-first and corruption-first. For the privacy-only setting, we show that log loss with an MLE-style algorithm achieves near-optimal rates, in contrast to conventional wisdom. For the joint privacy-and-corruption setting, we first demonstrate that existing offline algorithms in fact provide stronger guarantees -- simultaneously in terms of corruption level and privacy parameters -- than previously known, which further yields improved bounds in the corruption-only regime. In addition, we also present the first set of results for private and robust online alignment. Our results are enabled by new uniform convergence guarantees for log loss and square loss under privacy and corruption, which we believe have broad applicability across learning theory and statistics.

DuaDeep-SeqAffinity is a sequence-only deep learning framework that predicts antibody--antigen binding affinity directly from primary amino acid sequences, avoiding the cost and scarcity of resolved three-dimensional structures. The antigen and the antibody heavy and light chains are processed as three independent streams, each embedded with a frozen ESM-2 protein language model and passed through parallel Transformer and convolutional neural network (CNN) branches before late fusion, a decoupled design intended to preserve local complementarity-determining region (CDR) signal that monolithic encoders can dilute. On a sequence-disjoint split of the AbRank benchmark, the model achieves a Pearson correlation of 0.683, an R^2 of 0.460, and a pairwise ranking AUC of 0.895, significantly outperforming single-branch ablations (paired t-test, p < 0.05). Attention-map and gradient-based saliency analyses further show that the model preferentially attends to CDR loops and candidate epitope residues, supporting its use as a scalable, structure-free tool for high-throughput antibody screening.

Data valuation is a natural framework for understanding which preference datasets matter most when aligning a Large Language Model (LLM) using multiple sources. The standard game-theoretic approach assigns each dataset a contribution score via the Shapley value. In practice, however, Shapley-based valuation is computationally prohibitive because it requires fine-tuning a separate model for every possible coalition of preference datasets, i.e., an exponential number of alignments. We address this challenge for a broad family of preference-optimization objectives, including DPO and IPO, that learn directly from log-policy ratios with respect to a reference policy. We introduce Sequential Preference Optimization, an offline procedure that applies existing preference optimization methods sequentially, source by source, updating the current policy after each dataset. Under exact optimization, this procedure yields an additive composition rule in reward space and an equivalent arithmetic composition rule in policy space. This observation enables an efficient approximation of the Shapley value: we train one model per preference dataset and reconstruct coalition policies at inference time from the singleton models, reducing the required alignments from exponential to linear in the number of sources. Leveraging this property, we compute Shapley values for several real-world preference datasets and reveal how each source drives model alignment.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as decision-making agents in high-stakes domains and as imitators of human behavior in the social and behavioral sciences. Yet how closely LLMs mirror human decision-making remains poorly understood. This gap is critical: misalignment could produce harmful outcomes in practice, while failure to replicate human behavior renders LLMs ineffective as social simulators. Here, we address this gap by replicating large-scale game-theoretic experiments and by introducing a systematic prompting and probing framework for machine-behavioral evaluation. We test three open models typically used to power agents (Llama, Mistral, and Qwen). Across 121 dyadic games spanning four classical game types, Llama reproduces human cooperation patterns with high fidelity, while Qwen aligns closely with Nash equilibrium predictions. Characterizing models through behavioral phenotyping, we find that humans and Llama share an envious decision profile, while Qwen and Mistral exhibit different profiles. An attention-based analysis of payoff salience reveals Llama processes payoff information in a structured, layer-dependent manner absent in Qwen and Mistral, suggesting a mechanistic basis for its closer alignment with human behavior. Population-level behavioral replication is achieved without persona-based prompting, simplifying the simulation process. Extending the experimental parameter space beyond the original human-tested games, we generate and preregister testable hypotheses for novel game configurations. Our findings demonstrate appropriately configured LLMs can replicate aggregate human behavioral patterns, exhibit human-like decision phenotypes, and enable systematic exploration of unexplored experimental spaces, offering a complementary approach to traditional behavioral research that generates new empirical predictions about human social decision-making.

As LLMs occupy an increasingly important role in society, they are more and more confronted with questions that require them not only to draw on their general knowledge but also to align with certain human value systems. Therefore, studying the alignment of LLMs with human values has become a crucial field of inquiry. Prior work, however, mostly focuses on evaluating the alignment of fully trained models, overlooking the training dynamics by which models learn to express human values. In this work, we investigate how and at which stage value alignment arises during the course of a model's post-training. Our analysis disentangles the effects of post-training algorithms and datasets, measuring both the magnitude and time of value drifts during training. Experimenting with Llama-3 and Qwen-3 models of different sizes and popular supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and preference optimization datasets and algorithms, we find that the SFT phase generally establishes a model's values, and subsequent preference optimization rarely re-aligns these values. Furthermore, using a synthetic preference dataset that enables controlled manipulation of values, we find that different preference optimization algorithms lead to different value alignment outcomes, even when preference data is held constant. Our findings provide actionable insights into how values are learned during post-training and help to inform data curation, as well as the selection of models and algorithms for preference optimization to improve model alignment to human values.

Reward models (RMs) have become essential for aligning large language models (LLMs), serving as scalable proxies for human evaluation in both training and inference. However, existing RMs struggle on knowledge-intensive and long-form tasks, where evaluating correctness requires grounding beyond the model's internal knowledge. This limitation hinders them from reliably discriminating subtle quality differences, especially when external evidence is necessary. To address this, we introduce OpenRM, a tool-augmented long-form reward model that systematically judges open-ended responses by invoking external tools to gather relevant evidence. We train OpenRM with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) on over 27K synthesized pairwise examples generated through a controllable data synthesis framework. The training objective jointly supervises intermediate tool usage and final outcome accuracy, incentivizing our reward model to learn effective evidence-based judgment strategies. Extensive experiments on three newly-collected datasets and two widely-used benchmarks demonstrate that OpenRM substantially outperforms existing reward modeling approaches. As a further step, we integrate OpenRM into both inference-time response selection and training-time data selection. This yields consistent gains in downstream LLM alignment tasks, highlighting the potential of tool-augmented reward models for scaling reliable long-form evaluation.

Whether artificial neural networks organize information comparably to the human brain remains unclear. Prior brain--AI alignment studies are constrained by specific inputs and tasks, limiting cross-modal comparison. Here we introduce a brain--model topological alignment space, mapping Transformer attention topology onto human intrinsic connectivity networks (ICNs) to enable task-free, modality-agnostic comparison. Analyzing 151 Transformer-based models with 62,480 attention head graphs, we observe a continuous arc-shaped distribution reflecting varying alignment. Models optimized for global semantics aligned with higher-order ICNs, while local-detail models aligned with sensory ICNs. Non-intuitive findings include reduced alignment in DINOv2 compared to its predecessors and a counterintuitive scaling inversion in distilled DeiT models, while fine-tuning and instruction tuning had limited effect. Alignment scores showed no significant correlation with ImageNet accuracy (r = 0.266, p = 0.156). This work offers a quantitative framework for comparing the organizational principles of artificial and biological systems.

The "alignment tax" of post-training is typically framed as a drop in task accuracy. We show it also involves a severe loss of calibration, making models overconfident, less reliable, and model outputs less diverse. We show that this trade-off can be navigated effectively via a simple post-hoc intervention: interpolating between a model's weights before and after alignment. Crucially, this is not a strict trade-off. We find that the process consistently reveals Pareto-optimal interpolations - models that improve accuracy beyond both parents while substantially recovering the calibration lost during alignment. Our work demonstrates that simple model merging provides a computationally efficient method for mitigating the full scope of the alignment tax, yielding models that are more capable and more reliable.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at both informal and formal (e.g. Lean 4) mathematical reasoning but still struggle with autoformalisation, the task of transforming informal into formal mathematical statements. Yet, the performance of current Math LLMs is constrained by the scarcity of large-scale corpora, particularly those containing pairs of informal and formal statements. Interestingly, the formal languages used in autoformalisation share structural similarities with programming languages, and code data is available at scale. However, current models trained on code do not transfer effectively to formal math, due to structural and syntactic differences between them. To address this, we propose TopoAlign, a framework that unlocks widely available code repositories as training resources for Math LLMs. TopoAlign decomposes code into docstrings, main functions, and dependency functions, and reassembles these components into analogues that structurally mirror formal statements. We train three state-of-the-art models, DeepSeek-Math, Qwen-3 and Herald, and evaluate them on the MiniF2F, Putnam, and ProofNet benchmarks. TopoAlign provides substantial gains for DeepSeek-Math, improving performance by 17.77% on BEq@10 and 68.82% on typecheck@10, and also measurably improves Herald by 0.12% on BEq@10 and 1.09% on typecheck@10 despite introducing no new mathematical knowledge.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive everyday contexts -- offering personal advice, mental health support, and moral guidance -- understanding their behavior in navigating complex moral reasoning is essential. Most evaluations study this sociotechnical alignment through single-turn prompts, but it is unclear if these findings extend to multi-turn settings, and even less clear how they depend on the interaction protocols used to coordinate agentic systems. We address this gap using LLM debate to examine deliberative dynamics and value alignment in multi-turn settings by prompting subsets of three models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) to collectively assign blame in 1,000 everyday dilemmas from Reddit's ``Am I the Asshole'' community. To test order effects and assess verdict revision, we use both synchronous (parallel responses) and round-robin (sequential responses) deliberation structures, mirroring how multi-agent systems are increasingly orchestrated in practice. Our findings show striking behavioral differences. In the synchronous setting, GPT-4.1 showed strong inertia (0.6-3.1% revision rates) while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash were far more flexible (28-41% revision rates). Value patterns also diverged: GPT-4.1 emphasized personal autonomy and direct communication (relative to its deliberation partners), while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash prioritized empathetic dialogue. We further find that deliberation format had a strong impact on model behavior: GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash stood out as highly conforming relative to Claude 3.7 Sonnet, with their verdict behavior strongly shaped by order effects. We provide additional results on open-source models (DeepSeek-V3.2 and Llama 3.1).

As Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities learned from vast corpora, concerns regarding data privacy and safety are receiving increasing attention. LLM unlearning, which aims to remove the influence of specific data while preserving overall model utility, is becoming an important research area. One of the mainstream unlearning classes is optimization-based methods, which achieve forgetting directly through fine-tuning, exemplified by Negative Preference Optimization (NPO). However, NPO's effectiveness is limited by its inherent lack of explicit positive preference signals. Attempts to introduce such signals by constructing preferred responses often necessitate domain-specific knowledge or well-designed prompts, fundamentally restricting their generalizability. In this paper, we shift the focus to the distribution-level, directly targeting the next-token probability distribution instead of entire responses, and derive a novel unlearning algorithm termed \textbf{Di}stribution \textbf{P}reference \textbf{O}ptimization (DiPO). We show that the requisite preference distribution pairs for DiPO, which are distributions over the model's output tokens, can be constructed by selectively amplifying or suppressing the model's high-confidence output logits, thereby effectively overcoming NPO's limitations. We theoretically prove the consistency of DiPO's loss function with the desired unlearning direction. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DiPO achieves a strong trade-off between model utility and forget quality. Notably, DiPO attains the highest forget quality on the TOFU benchmark, and maintains leading scalability and sustainability in utility preservation on the MUSE benchmark.

The human ability to translate diverse perceptual and linguistic inputs into structured behavior has been thought to rest on learning robust representations of concepts. The rapid advancement of transformer-based large language models (LLMs) has surfaced a diversity of computational ingredients relevant for model building - architectures, fine-tuning methods, and training datasets among others - yet it remains unclear which are most crucial for developing human-like conceptual representations. Further, most current benchmarks are ill-suited to measuring representational alignment, making LLMs' scores on them unreliable for assessing whether they are progressing as cognitive models. We address these limitations by evaluating over 75 models on a triplet similarity task, a method well established in cognitive science for measuring conceptual representations, using concepts from the THINGS database. We find that instruction fine-tuning and larger attention head dimensionality are among the strongest predictors of human alignment, while activation function choice, multimodal pretraining, and parameter size have limited influence on alignment. Correlations between alignment scores and existing benchmark scores reveal that while some benchmarks (e.g., BigBenchHard) better capture representational alignment than others (e.g., MUSR), none fully accounts for the variance in human-model alignment, demonstrating their insufficiency. Taken together, our findings highlight key computational ingredients for advancing LLMs as models of human conceptual representation and address a key gap in LLM evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behavior in business, economics, and the social sciences, offering a low-cost complement to laboratory experiments, field studies, and surveys. This paper evaluates how well LLMs replicate human behavior in operations management. Using nine published behavioral-operations experiments, we assess LLM performance along two dimensions: whether LLM-generated data reproduce the original hypothesis-test outcomes, and whether their full response distributions align with human data, measured by Wasserstein distance. We find that LLMs often replicate hypothesis-level effects, suggesting that they can capture salient decision biases and behavioral regularities. However, their response distributions frequently diverge from human data, even for strong proprietary models, with dispersion mismatch playing an important role. We also examine two lightweight mitigation strategies: chain-of-thought prompting and hyperparameter tuning. Both can reduce distributional misalignment, and appropriate tuning can sometimes allow smaller or open-source models to match or outperform larger proprietary systems.

Safety alignment in Large Language Models (LLMs) often involves mediating internal representations to refuse harmful requests. Recent research has demonstrated that these safety mechanisms can be bypassed by ablating or removing specific representational directions within the model. In this paper, we propose the opposite approach: Rank-One Safety Injection (ROSI), a white-box method that amplifies a model's safety alignment by permanently steering its activations toward the refusal-mediating subspace. ROSI operates as a simple, fine-tuning-free rank-one weight modification applied to all residual stream write matrices. The required safety direction can be computed from a small set of harmful and harmless instruction pairs. We show that ROSI consistently increases safety refusal rates - as evaluated by Llama Guard 3 - while preserving the utility of the model on standard benchmarks such as MMLU, HellaSwag, and Arc. Furthermore, we show that ROSI can also re-align 'uncensored' models by amplifying their own latent safety directions, demonstrating its utility as an effective last-mile safety procedure. Our results suggest that targeted, interpretable weight steering is a cheap and potent mechanism to improve LLM safety, complementing more resource-intensive fine-tuning paradigms.

To fine-tune large language models (LLMs) over private data, federated learning (FL) has emerged as a promising paradigm. However, the prohibitive memory and communication demands of LLMs render standard FL impractical for resource-constrained edge devices. While split federated learning (SFL) alleviates the computing burdens via model partitioning, existing frameworks still suffer from communication bottlenecks and straggler problem due to the parameter aggregation process. To address these challenges, we propose FlexP-SFT, a novel aggregation-free framework for personalized split federated fine-tuning, which fundamentally eliminates the client-side aggregation process. Crucially, to ensure robust training in the absence of global synchronization, we introduce a layer-flexible alignment strategy to balance personalization and generalization capabilities. We further formulate split-ratio selection as a resource-aware discrete optimization problem that jointly accounts for personalization accuracy and system cost. Our proposed scheme simultaneously enhances personalized performance, reduces communication overhead, and resolves the straggler problem. Extensive results show that FlexP-SFT substantially outperforms baselines in both accuracy and latency, and that the optimized split ratio achieves a better resource-accuracy trade-off than static or memory-only choices.

Although GRPO substantially enhances flow matching models in human preference alignment of image generation, methods such as FlowGRPO and DanceGRPO still exhibit inefficiency due to the necessity of sampling and optimizing over all denoising steps specified by the Markov Decision Process (MDP). In this paper, we propose $\textbf{MixGRPO}$, a novel framework that leverages the flexibility of mixed sampling strategies through the integration of stochastic differential equations (SDE) and ordinary differential equations (ODE). This streamlines the optimization process within the MDP to improve efficiency and boost performance. Specifically, MixGRPO introduces a sliding window mechanism, using SDE sampling and GRPO-guided optimization only within the window, while applying ODE sampling outside. This design confines sampling randomness to the time-steps within the window, thereby reducing the optimization overhead, and allowing for more focused gradient updates to accelerate convergence. Additionally, as time-steps beyond the sliding window are not involved in optimization, higher-order solvers are supported for faster sampling. So we present a faster variant, termed $\textbf{MixGRPO-Flash}$, which further improves training efficiency while achieving comparable performance. MixGRPO exhibits substantial gains across multiple dimensions of human preference alignment, outperforming DanceGRPO in both effectiveness and efficiency, with nearly 50% lower training time. Notably, MixGRPO-Flash further reduces training time by 71%.

Online alignment of large language models (LLMs) is dominated by reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) with gradient-based optimizers such as PPO or GRPO. While effective, these pipelines require backpropagation through long rollouts, gradient synchronization across devices, and careful hyperparameter tuning, all of which become increasingly costly at scale. We present ESSA (Evolutionary Strategies for Scalable Alignment), a gradient-free online alignment stage that follows supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and replaces the gradient loop with inference-only black-box search. ESSA optimizes only the singular values of low-rank adaptation (LoRA) factors after a short SFT warm-start, restricting the search to a compact, task-aligned subspace where evolutionary search is practical even for 72B-parameter models. Because the loop is inference-only, ESSA is compatible with INT4/INT8 weight quantization and reduces inter-GPU communication to a few bytes per iteration. Across instruction following (IFEval), preference-based assistant tuning (HelpSteer2, HH-RLHF), and mathematical reasoning (GSM8K, MATH500), ESSA matches or exceeds LoRA-GRPO in the reported LoRA comparisons; on GSM8K it also outperforms Online DPO and PPO, while remaining competitive with both methods on IFEval. At scale, ESSA reaches a fixed MATH500 accuracy on Qwen2.5-32B/PRM800K up to 7.8x faster than LoRA-GRPO on 128 GPUs.

Mental health is a growing global concern, prompting interest in AI-driven solutions to expand access to psychosocial support. \emph{Peer support}, grounded in lived experience, offers a valuable complement to professional care. However, variability in training, effectiveness, and definitions raises concerns about quality, consistency, and safety. Large Language Models (LLMs) present new opportunities to enhance peer support interactions, particularly in real-time, text-based interactions. We present and evaluate an AI-supported system with an LLM-simulated distressed client (\client{}), context-sensitive LLM-generated suggestions (\suggestions{}), and real-time emotion visualisations. 2 mixed-methods studies with 12 peer supporters and 6 mental health professionals (i.e., experts) examined the system's effectiveness and implications for practice. Both groups recognised its potential to enhance training and improve interaction quality. However, we found a key tension emerged: while peer supporters engaged meaningfully, experts consistently flagged critical issues in peer supporter responses, such as missed distress cues and premature advice-giving. This misalignment highlights potential limitations in current peer support training, especially in emotionally charged contexts where safety and fidelity to best practices are essential. Our findings underscore the need for standardised, psychologically grounded training, especially as peer support scales globally. They also demonstrate how LLM-supported systems can scaffold this development--if designed with care and guided by expert oversight. This work contributes to emerging conversations on responsible AI integration in mental health and the evolving role of LLMs in augmenting peer-delivered care.

Conventional large language model (LLM) safety alignment relies on a reactive, disjoint loop: attackers exploit a static model, then defenders patch exposed vulnerabilities. This sequential setup leads to attackers overfitting obsolete exploits while defenders perpetually lag behind emerging threats. To address this, we introduce Self-RedTeam, the first fully online self-play multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) algorithm that continuously co-evolves attacker and defender for robust safety alignment. A single policy self-plays as both attacker and defender, generating adversarial prompts and defending against them, with a reward model adjudicating outcomes. Each role uses hidden chain-of-thought for strategic planning. Grounded in two-player zero-sum game theory, we establish a theoretical safety guarantee: if the game converges to Nash Equilibrium, the defender produces safe responses against any adversarial input. Empirically, Self-RedTeam generalizes across five models from the Llama and Qwen families, uncovering more diverse attacks (+17.80% SBERT) and improving safety of RLHF-trained models by up to 95% across 14 benchmarks. Our work motivates a shift from reactive patching to proactive co-evolution, enabling LLM safety self-improvement via online self-play MARL. Link to code: https://github.com/mickelliu/selfplay-redteaming

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents become more widespread, associated misalignment risks increase. While prior research has studied agents' ability to produce harmful outputs or follow malicious instructions, it remains unclear how likely agents are to spontaneously pursue unintended goals in realistic deployments. In this work, we approach misalignment as a conflict between the internal goals pursued by the model and the goals intended by its deployer. We introduce a misalignment propensity benchmark, \textsc{AgentMisalignment}, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the propensity of LLM agents to misalign in realistic scenarios. Evaluations cover behaviours such as avoiding oversight, resisting shutdown, sandbagging, and power-seeking. Testing frontier models, we find that more capable agents tend to exhibit higher misalignment on average. We also systematically vary agent personalities through different system prompts and observe that persona characteristics can strongly and unpredictably influence misalignment, sometimes more than the choice of model itself. Our results reveal the limitations of current alignment methods for autonomous LLM agents and underscore the need to rethink misalignment in realistic deployment settings.

We propose a novel benchmarking methodology for graph neural networks (GNNs) based on the graph alignment problem, a combinatorial optimization task that generalizes graph isomorphism by aligning two unlabeled graphs to maximize overlapping edges. We frame this problem as a self-supervised learning task and present several methods to generate graph alignment datasets using synthetic random graphs and real-world graph datasets from multiple domains. For a given graph dataset, we generate a family of graph alignment datasets with increasing difficulty, allowing us to rank the performance of various architectures. Our experiments prove that there is an optimal task difficulty for having a statistically relevant ranking of different models and that, even on a structure-only task, anisotropic models perform better compared to isotropic ones. To further prove that our synthetic task capture meaningful information, we show its effectiveness for self-supervised GNN pre-training: the learned node embeddings can be leveraged as positional encodings by transformers for graph regression or can be used to reconstruct the full structure of the graph with $98\%$ accuracy. To support reproducibility and further research, we provide an open-source Python package to generate graph alignment datasets and benchmark new GNN architectures. The source code is available at https://github.com/adrien-lagesse/graph-alignment-benchmark.

Curriculum learning enhances Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) for aligning Large Language Models (LLMs), yet existing methods rely on a one-dimensional view of difficulty. In this work, we reframe alignment difficulty as a two-dimensional space spanned by Prompt Complexity (PC) and Pairwise Distinguishability (PD), providing a more principled foundation for alignment. We first demonstrate the efficacy of this space by developing DM-Curri-DPO, a framework of static curricula that already achieves significant gains over baseline methods. Moving beyond these handcrafted paths, we introduce our primary contribution: GSP-Curri-DPO, a novel Group-wise Self-Paced Learning framework. This advanced method empowers the model to navigate the difficulty grid, discovering an optimal learning trajectory based on its own evolving capabilities. Extensive experiments show our self-paced approach not only sets a new state-of-the-art on key benchmarks but, more importantly, demonstrates superior data efficiency and robustness to preference noise. Our work establishes a new paradigm for LLM alignment, offering both a structured difficulty space and an intelligent, model-driven methodology for navigating it.

Chain-of-thought explanations are widely used to inspect the decision process of large language models (LLMs) and to evaluate the trustworthiness of model outputs, making them important for effective collaboration between LLMs and humans. We demonstrate that preference optimization - a key step in the alignment phase - can inadvertently reduce the faithfulness of these explanations. This occurs because the reward model (RM), which guides alignment, is tasked with optimizing both the expected quality of the response and the appropriateness of the explanations (e.g., minimizing bias or adhering to safety standards), creating potential conflicts. The RM lacks a mechanism to assess the consistency between the model's internal decision process and the generated explanation. Consequently, the LLM may engage in "reward hacking" by producing a final response that scores highly while giving an explanation tailored to maximize reward rather than accurately reflecting its reasoning. To address this issue, we propose enriching the RM's input with a causal attribution of the prediction, allowing the RM to detect discrepancies between the generated self-explanation and the model's decision process. In controlled settings, we show that this approach reduces the tendency of the LLM to generate misleading explanations.

While guided decoding, especially value-guided methods, has emerged as a cost-effective alternative for controlling language model outputs without re-training models, its effectiveness is limited by the accuracy of the value function. We identify that this inaccuracy stems from a core distributional gap: existing methods train static value functions on trajectories sampled exclusively from the base policy, which inherently confines their training to a narrow and suboptimal view of the potential output space. We propose Iterative Value Refinement, a evolutionary framework designed to narrow this gap. It employs Value Exploration to provide a more comprehensive and robust training signal, complemented by Iterative Self-Refinement, which uses the improved value function from one iteration to guide the generation of higher-quality data for the next. Extensive experiments on text summarization, multi-turn dialogue, and instruction following demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in aligning language models. Our approach not only achieves alignment but also significantly reduces computational costs by leveraging principled value function optimization for efficient and effective control.

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.

Due to the dynamics of the Semantic Web, version control is necessary to manage changes in widely used ontologies. Despite the long-standing recognition of ontology versioning (OV) as a crucial component of efficient ontology management, many approaches treat OV as similar to ontology matching (OM) and directly reuse OM systems for OV tasks. In this study, we systematically analyse similarities and differences between OM and OV and formalise an OM4OV framework to offer more advanced OV support. The framework is implemented and evaluated in the state-of-the-art OM system Agent-OM. The experimental results indicate that OM systems can be effectively reused for OV tasks, but without the necessary extensions, can produce skewed measurements, poor performance in detecting update entities, and limited explanations of false mappings. To tackle these issues, we propose an optimisation method called the cross-reference (CR) mechanism, which builds on existing OM alignments to reduce the number of matching candidates and to improve overall OV performance.

We introduce a training-free safety enhancement method for aligning large language models (LLMs) without the need for supervised fine-tuning or reinforcement learning from human feedback. Our main idea is to provide a robust plug-and-play approach to prevent shadow alignment when models are adapted to downstream tasks. Specifically, we leverage knowledge distillation to extract alignment signals from well-aligned LLMs and inject them into shadow-aligned models via model fusion, enabling plug-and-play alignment correction. In our methodology, we employ delta debugging to identify the critical components of knowledge necessary for effective distillation. On the harmful question dataset, our method significantly enhances the average defense success rate by approximately 14.42%, reaching as high as 51.39% across 17 influenced LLMs, without compromising performance. Our code is available at https://github.com/NWULIST/DAPA.

One of today's most pressing societal challenges is building AI systems whose behaviour, or the behaviour it enables within communities of interacting human and artificial agents, aligns with relevant human values. To address this challenge, we propose a formal computational framework for representing human values that provides the foundational structures required for value-aware reasoning in multi-agent systems. To our knowledge, this has not been attempted as yet, which is surprising given the growing volume of research integrating human values into AI systems. Taking as our starting point the wealth of research in human values from the field of social psychology, we set out to provide a formal model which captures value relations, value importance, and computational semantics in order to support the evaluation of behaviour with respect to values and the development of value-aware decision-making mechanisms in agent-based systems. We demonstrate how the model supports the evaluation of behaviour in terms of value alignment across a real-world scenario, establishing a bridge between abstract human values and concrete agent behaviour. We illustrate how our model captures key concepts from social psychology research and outline a roadmap for incorporating values as first-class constructs in multi-agent systems.

Problem definition: This paper studies the problem of estimating consumer preferences from bundle sales data. Product bundling is a widely used pricing strategy in retail markets. To set profitable bundle selection and prices, the seller needs to learn the distribution of consumers' valuations for individual products from the transaction data. When customers purchase bundles or multiple products, classical methods such as discrete choice models cannot be used to estimate consumers' valuations. In this paper, we propose an approach to learn the distribution of consumers' valuations toward the products using bundle sales data. Methodology/results: Our approach is to define a utility model for customer choices and estimate the parameters of a valuation distribution that maximizes the likelihood of observing the transaction data. Our approach reduces this problem to an estimation problem where the samples are censored by polyhedral regions on the valuation space of customers. Using the EM algorithm and Monte Carlo simulation, our approach can recover the distribution of consumers' valuations. We extend the framework to allow for unobserved no-purchases, clustered market segments and to incorporate non-additive bundle utilities with synergy effects. In addition, we provide theoretical results on the identifiability of the probability model and sufficient conditions for local convergence of the EM algorithm. Moreover, the performance of the approach is also demonstrated numerically with synthetic and real datasets. Managerial implications: This study demonstrates the challenge to leverage the transaction data of bundle sales to learn customers' preferences. The proposed algorithm provides a practical guidance for retailers.

In this study, we identify depth-dependent prefix redundancy in final-readout LLM embedding models, notably across representative backbones including Qwen3-Embedding and Qwen3-VL-Embedding. We find that removing prefix states is substantially more damaging in shallow layers than at greater depth, showing that prefix states become increasingly compressible as the prefix and readout states propagate through the network. To this end, we introduce FastE, a training-free, plug-and-play method. FastE uses a shared fixed threshold on batch-mean readout-prefix alignment as a lightweight online heuristic for selecting when compression occurs, and ranks prefix states by the attention scores they receive from the readout position to determine which states are retained in subsequent layers. Our evaluations demonstrate FastE's ability to substantially reduce computational costs: on NarrativeQA with Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B, it reduces decoder-backbone FLOPs by 40.11% while retaining 99.53% of Full Forward nDCG@10. Across five text embedding benchmarks, two backbone scales, and three cross-modal retrieval tasks, the quality-efficiency trade-off is directly customizable through the maximum removal ratio without retraining. We believe FastE offers practical value for scalable embedding generation in retrieval, indexing, clustering, and multimodal representation systems.

Large language models are being widely used across industries to generate text that contributes directly to key performance metrics, such as medication adherence in patient messaging and conversion rates in content generation. Pretrained models, however, often fall short when it comes to aligning with human preferences or optimizing for business objectives. As a result, fine-tuning with good-quality labeled data is essential to guide models to generate content that achieves better results. Controlled experiments, like A/B tests, can provide such data, but they are often expensive and come with significant engineering, logistical, and ethical challenges. Meanwhile, companies have access to a vast amount of historical (observational) data that remains underutilized. In this work, we study the challenges and opportunities of fine-tuning LLMs using observational data. We show that while observational outcomes can provide valuable supervision, directly fine-tuning models on such data can lead them to learn spurious correlations. We present empirical evidence of this issue using various real-world datasets and propose DeconfoundLM, a method that explicitly removes the effect of known confounders from reward signals. In simulation experiments, DeconfoundLM more accurately recovers causal relationships and mitigates failure modes of methods that assume counterfactual invariance, achieving over 16% higher objective score than ODIN and other baselines, when entangled confounding is present. Please refer to the project page for code and related resources.

Brain-language model alignment is often interpreted as evidence that transformer models implement computations similar to those of the human brain. This assumes that neural predictivity reflects internal computational properties of large language models (LLMs), such as hierarchical contextual processing, predictive coding, or representational compression. An alternative possibility is that brain scores primarily reflect stable lexical-semantic correspondences shared by language models and the brain. Here we tested these interpretations using whole-brain encoding models across Mandarin, English, and French. Across all three languages, transformer representations significantly predicted activity in a distributed network spanning classical language regions, transmodal cortical systems, and subcortical structures. These spatial patterns showed substantial cross-linguistic overlap and remained remarkably stable across layers, providing little evidence that model depth systematically maps onto cortical processing hierarchies. Likewise, contextual transformer embeddings did not consistently outperform static lexical embeddings, despite providing some unique predictive variance. Finally, neither surprisal nor intrinsic dimensionality reproduced the layer-wise profile of brain scores, arguing against prediction and information compression as primary explanations for brain-LLM alignment. Together, these findings suggest that brain-LLM alignment is more robust across languages, transformer depth, and model architectures than previously appreciated, but less informative about shared computational mechanisms. Our results are more consistent with neural predictivity reflecting stable representational structure preserved across model transformations than with a one-to-one correspondence between their underlying computations.

During training, Large Language Models (LLMs) learn social regularities that can lead to gender bias in downstream applications. Most mitigation efforts focus on reducing bias in generated outputs, typically evaluated on structured benchmarks, which raises two concerns: output-level evaluation does not reveal whether alignment modifies the model's underlying representations, and structured benchmarks may not reflect realistic usage scenarios. We propose a unified framework to jointly analyze intrinsic and extrinsic gender bias in LLMs using identical neutral prompts, enabling direct comparison between gender-related information encoded in internal representations and bias expressed in generated outputs. Contrary to prior work reporting weak or inconsistent correlations, we find a consistent association between latent gender information and expressed bias when measured under the unified protocol. We further examine the effect of alignment through supervised fine-tuning aimed at reducing gender bias. Our results suggest that while the latter indeed reduces expressed bias, measurable gender-related associations are still present in internal representations, and can be reactivated under adversarial prompting. Finally, we consider two realistic settings and show that debiasing effects observed on structured benchmarks do not necessarily generalize, e.g., to the case of story generation.