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

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

ADRD: LLM-Driven Autonomous Driving Based on Rule-based Decision Systems

How to construct an interpretable autonomous driving decision-making system has become a focal point in academic research. In this study, we propose a novel approach that leverages large language models (LLMs) to generate executable, rule-based decision systems to address this challenge. Specifically, harnessing the strong reasoning and programming capabilities of LLMs, we introduce the ADRD(LLM-Driven Autonomous Driving Based on Rule-based Decision Systems) framework, which integrates three core modules: the Information Module, the Agents Module, and the Testing Module. The framework operates by first aggregating contextual driving scenario information through the Information Module, then utilizing the Agents Module to generate rule-based driving tactics. These tactics are iteratively refined through continuous interaction with the Testing Module. Extensive experimental evaluations demonstrate that ADRD exhibits superior performance in autonomous driving decision tasks. Compared to traditional reinforcement learning approaches and the most advanced LLM-based methods, ADRD shows significant advantages in terms of interpretability, response speed, and driving performance. These results highlight the framework's ability to achieve comprehensive and accurate understanding of complex driving scenarios, and underscore the promising future of transparent, rule-based decision systems that are easily modifiable and broadly applicable. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that integrates large language models with rule-based systems for autonomous driving decision-making, and our findings validate its potential for real-world deployment.

Rethinking Information Structures in RLHF: Reward Generalization from a Graph Theory Perspective

There is a trilemma in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF): the incompatibility between highly diverse contexts, low labeling cost, and reliable alignment performance. Here we aim to mitigate such incompatibility through the design of dataset information structures during reward modeling, and meanwhile propose new, generalizable methods of analysis that have wider applications, including potentially shedding light on goal misgeneralization. Specifically, we first reexamine the RLHF process and propose a theoretical framework portraying it as an autoencoding process over text distributions. Our framework formalizes the RLHF objective of ensuring distributional consistency between human preference and large language model (LLM) behavior. Based on this framework, we introduce a new method to model generalization in the reward modeling stage of RLHF, the induced Bayesian network (IBN). Drawing from random graph theory and causal analysis, it enables empirically grounded derivation of generalization error bounds, a key improvement over classical methods of generalization analysis. An insight from our analysis is the superiority of the tree-based information structure in reward modeling, compared to chain-based baselines in conventional RLHF methods. We derive that in complex contexts with limited data, the tree-based reward model (RM) induces up to $\Theta(\log n/\log\log n)$ times less variance than chain-based RM where $n$ is the dataset size. As validation, we demonstrate that on three NLP tasks, the tree-based RM achieves 65% win rate on average against chain-based baselines. Looking ahead, we hope to extend the IBN analysis to help understand the phenomenon of goal misgeneralization.

AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Survey

AI alignment aims to make AI systems behave in line with human intentions and values. As AI systems grow more capable, the potential large-scale risks associated with misaligned AI systems become salient. Hundreds of AI experts and public figures have expressed concerns about AI risks, arguing that "mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority, alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war". To provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the alignment field, in this survey paper, we delve into the core concepts, methodology, and practice of alignment. We identify the RICE principles as the key objectives of AI alignment: Robustness, Interpretability, Controllability, and Ethicality. Guided by these four principles, we outline the landscape of current alignment research and decompose them into two key components: forward alignment and backward alignment. The former aims to make AI systems aligned via alignment training, while the latter aims to gain evidence about the systems' alignment and govern them appropriately to avoid exacerbating misalignment risks. Forward alignment and backward alignment form a recurrent process where the alignment of AI systems from the forward process is verified in the backward process, meanwhile providing updated objectives for forward alignment in the next round. On forward alignment, we discuss learning from feedback and learning under distribution shift. On backward alignment, we discuss assurance techniques and governance practices that apply to every stage of AI systems' lifecycle. We also release and continually update the website (www.alignmentsurvey.com) which features tutorials, collections of papers, blog posts, and other resources.