Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Cassidy Laidlaw

dblp:241/5375 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
11ranked-venue papers
8as first author
9since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 11 · 8 first-author · 9 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
11 papers
Reinforcement learning · 45% Language models and text generation · 16% Trustworthy machine learning · 16%
Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Computer animation and physical simulation · 100%

Topics — the 27 heaviest of 28, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
reinforcement learning from human feedback
2.842025
Iterative Label Refinement Matters More than Preference Optimization under Weak Supervision · ICLR 2025
Correlated Proxies: A New Definition and Improved Mitigation for Reward Hacking · ICLR 2025
Distributional Preference Learning: Understanding and Accounting for Hidden Context in RLHF · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reinforcement learning theory
effective horizon
1.422024
The Effective Horizon Explains Deep RL Performance in Stochastic Environments · ICLR 2024
Bridging RL Theory and Practice with the Effective Horizon · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
preference learning
1.322024
Distributional Preference Learning: Understanding and Accounting for Hidden Context in RLHF · ICLR 2024
Uncertain Decisions Facilitate Better Preference Learning · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › imitation learning
inverse reinforcement learning
1.122022
The Boltzmann Policy Distribution: Accounting for Systematic Suboptimality in Human Models · ICLR 2022
Uncertain Decisions Facilitate Better Preference Learning · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Learning theory
sample complexity
0.922024
The Effective Horizon Explains Deep RL Performance in Stochastic Environments · ICLR 2024
Uncertain Decisions Facilitate Better Preference Learning · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial robustness
0.922021
Perceptual Adversarial Robustness: Defense Against Unseen Threat Models · ICLR 2021
Functional Adversarial Attacks · NeurIPS 2019
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › game tree search
monte carlo tree search
0.912025
AssistanceZero: Scalably Solving Assistance Games · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
multi-agent reinforcement learning
0.912025
AssistanceZero: Scalably Solving Assistance Games · ICML 2025
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
planning under uncertainty
0.912025
AssistanceZero: Scalably Solving Assistance Games · ICML 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model training
post-training
0.912025
Iterative Label Refinement Matters More than Preference Optimization under Weak Supervision · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › alignment
preference alignment
0.912025
Iterative Label Refinement Matters More than Preference Optimization under Weak Supervision · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › alignment
reward hacking
0.912025
Correlated Proxies: A New Definition and Improved Mitigation for Reward Hacking · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model › large language model adaptation
supervised fine-tuning
0.912025
Iterative Label Refinement Matters More than Preference Optimization under Weak Supervision · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › data curation
training data curation
0.912025
Iterative Label Refinement Matters More than Preference Optimization under Weak Supervision · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness
0.822025
Perceptual Adversarial Robustness: Defense Against Unseen Threat Models · ICLR 2021
Iterative Label Refinement Matters More than Preference Optimization under Weak Supervision · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.812024
Distributional Preference Learning: Understanding and Accounting for Hidden Context in RLHF · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › dynamic programming › value iteration
fitted q-iteration
0.812024
The Effective Horizon Explains Deep RL Performance in Stochastic Environments · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
reinforcement learning theory
0.712023
Bridging RL Theory and Practice with the Effective Horizon · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Learning theory › sample complexity
sample complexity bounds
0.712023
Bridging RL Theory and Practice with the Effective Horizon · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial attack
0.412019
Functional Adversarial Attacks · NeurIPS 2019
Natural language and speech › Speech recognition and synthesis
speech-driven animation
0.412019
Capture, Learning, and Synthesis of 3D Speaking Styles · CVPR 2019
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
threat model
0.412019
Functional Adversarial Attacks · NeurIPS 2019
Computer animation and physical simulation › facial animation
speech-driven facial animation
0.412019
Capture, Learning, and Synthesis of 3D Speaking Styles · CVPR 2019
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › learning from noisy data
noisy supervision
0.312025
Iterative Label Refinement Matters More than Preference Optimization under Weak Supervision · ICLR 2025
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
social choice
0.212024
Distributional Preference Learning: Understanding and Accounting for Hidden Context in RLHF · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
deep reinforcement learning
0.212023
Bridging RL Theory and Practice with the Effective Horizon · NeurIPS 2023
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
image classification
0.112019
Functional Adversarial Attacks · NeurIPS 2019

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

distributional preference learning · 1.5neural network human modeling · 0.9iterative label refinement · 0.9imitation learning · 0.9direct preference optimization · 0.9chi-squared divergence regularization · 0.9alphazero · 0.9KL penalty · 0.9value iteration · 0.8fitted q-iteration · 0.8RLHF · 0.8DPO · 0.8neural network · 0.4identity disentanglement · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Correlated Proxies: A New Definition and Improved Mitigation for Reward Hacking
abstract
Because it is difficult to precisely specify complex objectives, reinforcement learning policies are often optimized using proxy reward functions that only approximate the true goal. However, optimizing proxy rewards frequently leads to reward hacking: the optimized reward function ceases to be a good proxy and the resulting policy performs poorly with respect to the unspecified true reward. Principled solutions to reward hacking have been impeded by the lack of a good definition for the problem. To address this gap, we introduce a definition of reward hacking based on the correlation between proxy and true rewards for states and actions seen by a “reference policy” that breaks down under optimization. We show that this definition captures reward hacking behavior across several realistic settings, including in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Using our formulation, we show theoretically that regularization to the reference policy can effectively prevent reward hacking. While the current practice in RLHF applies a KL penalty between action distributions for this purpose, our theory suggests regularizing the χ2 divergence between the policies’ occupancy measures can be more effective. We intuitively show the benefits of this type of regularization and demonstrate that it better mitigates reward hacking in practice across four realistic settings, including RLHF. Our code is available at https://github.com/cassidylaidlaw/orpo.
Cassidy Laidlaw, Shivam Singhal, Anca D. Dragan
ICLR1
2025 Iterative Label Refinement Matters More than Preference Optimization under Weak Supervision
abstract
Language model (LM) post-training relies on two stages of human supervision: task demonstrations for supervised finetuning (SFT), followed by preference comparisons for reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). As LMs become more capable, the tasks they are given become harder to supervise. Will post-training remain effective under unreliable supervision? To test this, we simulate unreliable demonstrations and comparison feedback using small LMs and time-constrained humans. We find that in the presence of unreliable supervision, SFT still retains some effectiveness, but DPO (a common RLHF algorithm) fails to improve the model beyond SFT. To address this, we propose *iterative label refinement* (ILR) as an alternative to RLHF. ILR improves the SFT data by using comparison feedback to decide whether human demonstrations should be replaced by model-generated alternatives, then retrains the model via SFT on the updated data. SFT+ILR outperforms SFT+DPO on several tasks with unreliable supervision (math, coding, and safe instruction-following). Our findings suggest that as LMs are used for complex tasks where human supervision is unreliable, RLHF may no longer be the best use of human comparison feedback; instead, it is better to direct feedback towards improving the training *data* rather than continually training the *model*. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/helloelwin/iterative-label-refinement.
Yaowen Ye, Cassidy Laidlaw, Jacob Steinhardt
ICLR2
2025 AssistanceZero: Scalably Solving Assistance Games
abstract
Assistance games are a promising alternative to reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) for training AI assistants. Assistance games resolve key drawbacks of RLHF, such as incentives for deceptive behavior, by explicitly modeling the interaction between assistant and user as a two-player game where the assistant cannot observe their shared goal. Despite their potential, assistance games have only been explored in simple settings. Scaling them to more complex environments is difficult because it requires both solving intractable decision-making problems under uncertainty and accurately modeling human users’ behavior. We present the first scalable approach to solving assistance games and apply it to a new, challenging Minecraft-based assistance game with over $10^{400}$ possible goals. Our approach, AssistanceZero, extends AlphaZero with a neural network that predicts human actions and rewards, enabling it to plan under uncertainty. We show that AssistanceZero outperforms model-free RL algorithms and imitation learning in the Minecraft-based assistance game. In a human study, our AssistanceZero-trained assistant significantly reduces the number of actions participants take to complete building tasks in Minecraft. Our results suggest that assistance games are a tractable framework for training effective AI assistants in complex environments. Code and videos are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/w/scalably-solving-assistance-games/.
Cassidy Laidlaw, Eli Bronstein, Timothy Guo, Dylan Feng, Lukas Berglund, Justin Svegliato, Stuart Russell 0001, Anca D. Dragan
ICML1
2024 The Effective Horizon Explains Deep RL Performance in Stochastic Environments
abstract
Reinforcement learning (RL) theory has largely focused on proving minimax sample complexity bounds. These require strategic exploration algorithms that use relatively limited function classes for representing the policy or value function. Our goal is to explain why deep RL algorithms often perform well in practice, despite using random exploration and much more expressive function classes like neural networks. Our work arrives at an explanation by showing that many stochastic MDPs can be solved by performing only a few steps of value iteration on the random policy’s Q function and then acting greedily. When this is true, we find that it is possible to separate the exploration and learning components of RL, making it much easier to analyze. We introduce a new RL algorithm, SQIRL, that iteratively learns a near-optimal policy by exploring randomly to collect rollouts and then performing a limited number of steps of fitted-Q iteration over those roll- outs. We find that any regression algorithm that satisfies basic in-distribution generalization properties can be used in SQIRL to efficiently solve common MDPs. This can explain why deep RL works with complex function approximators like neural networks, since it is empirically established that neural networks generalize well in-distribution. Furthermore, SQIRL explains why random exploration works well in practice, since we show many environments can be solved by effectively estimating the random policy’s Q-function and then applying zero or a few steps of value iteration. We leverage SQIRL to derive instance-dependent sample complexity bounds for RL that are exponential only in an “effective horizon” of lookahead—which is typically much smaller than the full horizon—and on the complexity of the class used for function approximation. Empirically, we also find that SQIRL performance strongly correlates with PPO and DQN performance in a variety of stochastic environments, supporting that our theoretical analysis is predictive of practical performance. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/cassidylaidlaw/effective-horizon.
Cassidy Laidlaw, Banghua Zhu, Stuart Russell 0001, Anca D. Dragan
ICLR1
2024 Distributional Preference Learning: Understanding and Accounting for Hidden Context in RLHF
abstract
In practice, preference learning from human feedback depends on incomplete data with hidden context. Hidden context refers to data that affects the feedback received, but which is not represented in the data used to train a preference model. This captures common issues of data collection, such as having human annotators with varied preferences, cognitive processes that result in seemingly irrational behavior, and combining data labeled according to different criteria. We prove that standard applications of preference learning, including reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), implicitly aggregate over hidden contexts according to a well-known voting rule called *Borda count*. We show this can produce counter-intuitive results that are very different from other methods which implicitly aggregate via expected utility. Furthermore, our analysis formalizes the way that preference learning from users with diverse values tacitly implements a social choice function. A key implication of this result is that annotators have an incentive to misreport their preferences in order to influence the learned model, leading to vulnerabilities in the deployment of RLHF. As a step towards mitigating these problems, we introduce a class of methods called *distributional preference learning* (DPL). DPL methods estimate a distribution of possible score values for each alternative in order to better account for hidden context. Experimental results indicate that applying DPL to RLHF for LLM chatbots identifies hidden context in the data and significantly reduces subsequent jailbreak vulnerability.
Anand Siththaranjan, Cassidy Laidlaw, Dylan Hadfield-Menell
ICLR2
2023 Bridging RL Theory and Practice with the Effective Horizon
abstract
Deep reinforcement learning (RL) works impressively in some environments and fails catastrophically in others. Ideally, RL theory should be able to provide an understanding of why this is, i.e. bounds predictive of practical performance. Unfortunately, current theory does not quite have this ability. We compare standard deep RL algorithms to prior sample complexity bounds by introducing a new dataset, BRIDGE. It consists of 155 MDPs from common deep RL benchmarks, along with their corresponding tabular representations, which enables us to exactly compute instance-dependent bounds. We find that prior bounds do not correlate well with when deep RL succeeds vs. fails, but discover a surprising property that does. When actions with the highest Q-values under the *random* policy also have the highest Q-values under the *optimal* policy—i.e., when it is optimal to act greedily with respect to the random's policy Q function—deep RL tends to succeed; when they don't, deep RL tends to fail. We generalize this property into a new complexity measure of an MDP that we call the *effective horizon*, which roughly corresponds to how many steps of lookahead search would be needed in that MDP in order to identify the next optimal action, when leaf nodes are evaluated with random rollouts. Using BRIDGE, we show that the effective horizon-based bounds are more closely reflective of the empirical performance of PPO and DQN than prior sample complexity bounds across four metrics. We also show that, unlike existing bounds, the effective horizon can predict the effects of using reward shaping or a pre-trained exploration policy. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/cassidylaidlaw/effective-horizon.
Cassidy Laidlaw, Stuart Russell 0001, Anca D. Dragan
NeurIPS1
2022 The Boltzmann Policy Distribution: Accounting for Systematic Suboptimality in Human Models
Cassidy Laidlaw, Anca D. Dragan
ICLR1
2021 Perceptual Adversarial Robustness: Defense Against Unseen Threat Models
Cassidy Laidlaw, Sahil Singla 0002, Soheil Feizi
ICLR1
2021 Uncertain Decisions Facilitate Better Preference Learning
abstract
Existing observational approaches for learning human preferences, such as inverse reinforcement learning, usually make strong assumptions about the observability of the human's environment. However, in reality, people make many important decisions under uncertainty. To better understand preference learning in these cases, we study the setting of inverse decision theory (IDT), a previously proposed framework where a human is observed making non-sequential binary decisions under uncertainty. In IDT, the human's preferences are conveyed through their loss function, which expresses a tradeoff between different types of mistakes. We give the first statistical analysis of IDT, providing conditions necessary to identify these preferences and characterizing the sample complexity—the number of decisions that must be observed to learn the tradeoff the human is making to a desired precision. Interestingly, we show that it is actually easier to identify preferences when the decision problem is more uncertain. Furthermore, uncertain decision problems allow us to relax the unrealistic assumption that the human is an optimal decision maker but still identify their exact preferences; we give sample complexities in this suboptimal case as well. Our analysis contradicts the intuition that partial observability should make preference learning more difficult. It also provides a first step towards understanding and improving preference learning methods for uncertain and suboptimal humans.
Cassidy Laidlaw, Stuart Russell 0001
NeurIPS1
2019 Capture, Learning, and Synthesis of 3D Speaking Styles
abstract
Audio-driven 3D facial animation has been widely explored, but achieving realistic, human-like performance is still unsolved. This is due to the lack of available 3D datasets, models, and standard evaluation metrics. To address this, we introduce a unique 4D face dataset with about 29 minutes of 4D scans captured at 60 fps and synchronized audio from 12 speakers. We then train a neural network on our dataset that factors identity from facial motion. The learned model, VOCA (Voice Operated Character Animation) takes any speech signal as input—even speech in languages other than English—and realistically animates a wide range of adult faces. Conditioning on subject labels during training allows the model to learn a variety of realistic speaking styles. VOCA also provides animator controls to alter speaking style, identity-dependent facial shape, and pose (i.e. head, jaw, and eyeball rotations) during animation. To our knowledge, VOCA is the only realistic 3D facial animation model that is readily applicable to unseen subjects without retargeting. This makes VOCA suitable for tasks like in-game video, virtual reality avatars, or any scenario in which the speaker, speech, or language is not known in advance. We make the dataset and model available for research purposes at http://voca.is.tue.mpg.de.
Daniel Cudeiro, Timo Bolkart, Cassidy Laidlaw, Anurag Ranjan, Michael J. Black
CVPR3
2019 Functional Adversarial Attacks
abstract
We propose functional adversarial attacks, a novel class of threat models for crafting adversarial examples to fool machine learning models. Unlike a standard lp-ball threat model, a functional adversarial threat model allows only a single function to be used to perturb input features to produce an adversarial example. For example, a functional adversarial attack applied on colors of an image can change all red pixels simultaneously to light red. Such global uniform changes in images can be less perceptible than perturbing pixels of the image individually. For simplicity, we refer to functional adversarial attacks on image colors as ReColorAdv, which is the main focus of our experiments. We show that functional threat models can be combined with existing additive (lp) threat models to generate stronger threat models that allow both small, individual perturbations and large, uniform changes to an input. Moreover, we prove that such combinations encompass perturbations that would not be allowed in either constituent threat model. In practice, ReColorAdv can significantly reduce the accuracy of a ResNet-32 trained on CIFAR-10. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, combining ReColorAdv with other attacks leads to the strongest existing attack even after adversarial training.
Cassidy Laidlaw, Soheil Feizi
NeurIPS1