Kristian Lum, Jacy Reese Anthis, Kevin Robinson, Chirag Nagpal, Alexander Nicholas D’Amour. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025.

We introduce a large language model (LLM) capable of processing speech inputs and show that tuning it further with reinforcement learning on human preference (RLHF) enables it to adapt better to disordered speech than traditional fine-tuning. Our method replaces low-frequency text tokens in an LLM’s vocabulary with audio tokens and enables the model to recognize speech by fine-tuning it on speech with transcripts. We then use RL with rewards based on syntactic and semantic accuracy measures generalizing the LLM further to recognize disordered speech. While the resulting LLM does not outperform existing systems for speech recognition we find that tuning with reinforcement learning using custom rewards leads to substantially better performance than supervised fine-tuning of the language model, specifically when adapting to speech in a different setting. This presents a compelling alternative tuning strategy for speech recognition using large language models.

A promising approach for improving reasoning in large language models is to use process reward models (PRMs). PRMs provide feedback at each step of a multi-step reasoning trace, improving credit assignment over outcome reward models (ORMs) that only provide feedback at the final step. However, collecting dense, per-step human labels is not scalable, and training PRMs from automatically-labeled data has thus far led to limited gains. With the goal of using PRMs to improve a *base* policy via test-time search and reinforcement learning (RL), we ask: ``How should we design process rewards?'' Our key insight is that, to be effective, the process reward for a step should measure *progress*: a change in the likelihood of producing a correct response in the future, before and after taking the step, as measured under a *prover* policy distinct from the base policy. Such progress values can {distinguish} good and bad steps generated by the base policy, even though the base policy itself cannot. Theoretically, we show that even weaker provers can improve the base policy, as long as they distinguish steps without being too misaligned with the base policy. Our results show that process rewards defined as progress under such provers improve the efficiency of exploration during test-time search and online RL. We empirically validate our claims by training **process advantage verifiers (PAVs)** to measure progress under such provers and show that compared to ORM, they are >8% more accurate, and 1.5-5x more compute-efficient. Equipped with these insights, our PAVs enable **one of the first results** showing a 6x gain in sample efficiency for a policy trained using online RL with PRMs vs. ORMs.

Language model alignment is a critical step in training modern generative language models. Alignment targets to improve win rate of a sample from the aligned model against the base model. Today, we are increasingly using inference-time algorithms (e.g., Best-of-$N$ , controlled decoding, tree search) to decode from language models rather than standard sampling. We show that this train/test mismatch makes standard RLHF framework sub-optimal in view of such inference-time methods. To this end, we propose a framework for inference-aware alignment (InfAlign), which aims to optimize *inference-time win rate* of the aligned policy against the base model. We prove that for any inference-time decoding procedure, the optimal aligned policy is the solution to the standard RLHF problem with a *transformation* of the reward. This motivates us to provide the calibrate-and-transform RL (InfAlign-CTRL) algorithm to solve this problem, which involves a reward calibration step and a KL-regularized reward maximization step with a transformation of the calibrated reward. For best-of-$N$ sampling and best-of-$N$ jailbreaking, we propose specific transformations offering up to 3-8% improvement on inference-time win rates. Finally, we also show that our proposed reward calibration method is a strong baseline for optimizing standard win rate.

A simple and effective method for the inference-time alignment of generative models is the best-of-$n$ policy, where $n$ samples are drawn from a reference policy, ranked based on a reward function, and the highest ranking one is selected. A commonly used analytical expression in the literature claims that the KL divergence between the best-of-$n$ policy and the reference policy is equal to $\log (n) - (n-1)/n.$ We disprove the validity of this claim, and show that it is an upper bound on the actual KL divergence. We also explore the tightness of this upper bound in different regimes, and propose a new estimator for the KL divergence and empirically show that it provides a tight approximation. We also show that the win rate of the best-of-$n$ policy against the reference policy is upper bounded by $n/(n+1)$ and derive bounds on the tightness of this characterization. We conclude with analyzing the tradeoffs between win rate and KL divergence of the best-of-$n$ alignment policy, which demonstrate that very good tradeoffs are achievable with $n < 1000$.

Disaggregated evaluation across subgroups is critical for assessing the fairness of machine learning models, but its uncritical use can mislead practitioners. We show that equal performance across subgroups is an unreliable measure of fairness when data are representative of the relevant populations but reflective of real-world disparities. Furthermore, when data are not representative due to selection bias, both disaggregated evaluation and alternative approaches based on conditional independence testing may be invalid without explicit assumptions regarding the bias mechanism. We use causal graphical models to characterize fairness properties and metric stability across subgroups under different data generating processes. Our framework suggests complementing disaggregated evaluations with explicit causal assumptions and analysis to control for confounding and distribution shift, including conditional independence testing and weighted performance estimation. These findings have broad implications for how practitioners design and interpret model assessments given the ubiquity of disaggregated evaluation.

A common approach for aligning language models to human preferences is to first learn a reward model from preference data, and then use this reward model to update the language model. We study two closely related problems that arise in this approach. First, any monotone transformation of the reward model preserves preference ranking; is there a choice that is "better" than others? Second, we often wish to align language models to multiple properties: how should we combine multiple reward models? Using a probabilistic interpretation of the alignment procedure, we identify a natural choice for transformation for (the common case of) rewards learned from Bradley-Terry preference models. The derived transformation is straightforward: we apply a log-sigmoid function to the centered rewards, a method we term "LSC-transformation" (log-sigmoid-centered transformation). This transformation has two important properties. First, it emphasizes improving poorly-performing outputs, rather than outputs that already score well. This mitigates both underfitting (where some prompts are not improved) and reward hacking (where the model learns to exploit misspecification of the reward model). Second, it enables principled aggregation of rewards by linking summation to logical conjunction: the sum of transformed rewards corresponds to the probability that the output is "good" in all measured properties, in a sense we make precise. Experiments aligning language models to be both helpful and harmless using RLHF show substantial improvements over the baseline (non-transformed) approach.

Machine learning models are often personalized based on information that is protected, sensitive, self-reported, or costly to acquire. These models use information about people, but do not facilitate nor inform their *consent*. Individuals cannot opt out of reporting information that a model needs to personalize their predictions nor tell if they benefit from personalization in the first place. We introduce a new family of prediction models, called participatory systems, that let individuals opt into personalization at prediction time. We present a model-agnostic algorithm to learn participatory systems for supervised learning tasks where models are personalized with categorical group attributes. We conduct a comprehensive empirical study of participatory systems in clinical prediction tasks, comparing them to common approaches for personalization and imputation. Our results show that participatory systems can facilitate and inform consent in a way that improves performance and privacy across all groups who report personal data.

Estimation of treatment efficacy of real-world clinical interventions involves working with continuous time-to-event outcomes such as time-to-death, re-hospitalization, or a composite event that may be subject to censoring. Counterfactual reasoning in such scenarios requires decoupling the effects of confounding physiological characteristics that affect baseline survival rates from the effects of the interventions being assessed. In this paper, we present a latent variable approach to model heterogeneous treatment effects by proposing that an individual can belong to one of latent clusters with distinct response characteristics. We show that this latent structure can mediate the base survival rates and help determine the effects of an intervention. We demonstrate the ability of our approach to discover actionable phenotypes of individuals based on their treatment response on multiple large randomized clinical trials originally conducted to assess appropriate treatment strategies to reduce cardiovascular risk.

We describe a new approach to estimating relative risks in time-to-event prediction problems with censored data in a fully parametric manner. Our approach does not require making strong assumptions of constant proportional hazards of the underlying survival distribution, as required by the Cox-proportional hazard model. By jointly learning deep nonlinear representations of the input covariates, we demonstrate the benefits of our approach when used to estimate survival risks through extensive experimentation on multiple real world datasets with different levels of censoring. We further demonstrate advantages of our model in the competing risks scenario. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work involving fully parametric estimation of survival times with competing risks in the presence of censoring.