Process Supervision for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning via Monte Carlo Net Information Gain

Multi-step reasoning improves the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) but increases the risk of errors propagating through intermediate steps. Process reward models (PRMs) mitigate this by scoring each step individually, enabling fine-grained supervision and improved reliability. Existing methods for training PRMs rely on costly human annotations or computationally intensive automatic labeling. We propose a novel approach to automatically generate step-level labels using Information Theory. Our method estimates how each reasoning step affects the likelihood of the correct answer, providing a signal of step quality. Importantly, it reduces computational complexity to $\mathcal{O}(N)$, improving over the previous $\mathcal{O}(N \log N)$ methods. We demonstrate that these labels enable effective chain-of-thought selection in best-of-$K$ evaluation settings across diverse reasoning benchmarks, including mathematics, Python programming, SQL, and scientific question answering. This work enables scalable and efficient supervision of LLM reasoning, particularly for tasks where error propagation is critical.

PleaSQLarify: Visual Pragmatic Repair for Natural Language Database Querying

Natural language database interfaces broaden data access, yet they remain brittle under input ambiguity. Standard approaches often collapse uncertainty into a single query, offering little support for mismatches between user intent and system interpretation. We reframe this challenge through pragmatic inference: while users economize expressions, systems operate on priors over the action space that may not align with the users'. In this view, pragmatic repair -- incremental clarification through minimal interaction -- is a natural strategy for resolving underspecification. We present \textsc{PleaSQLarify}, which operationalizes pragmatic repair by structuring interaction around interpretable decision variables that enable efficient clarification. A visual interface complements this by surfacing the action space for exploration, requesting user disambiguation, and making belief updates traceable across turns. In a study with twelve participants, \textsc{PleaSQLarify} helped users recognize alternative interpretations and efficiently resolve ambiguity. Our findings highlight pragmatic repair as a design principle that fosters effective user control in natural language interfaces.

MAVRL: Learning Reward Functions from Multiple Feedback Types with Amortized Variational Inference

Reward learning typically relies on a single feedback type or combines multiple feedback types using manually weighted loss terms. Currently, it remains unclear how to jointly learn reward functions from heterogeneous feedback types such as demonstrations, comparisons, ratings, and stops that provide qualitatively different signals. We address this challenge by formulating reward learning from multiple feedback types as Bayesian inference over a shared latent reward function, where each feedback type contributes information through an explicit likelihood. We introduce a scalable amortized variational inference approach that learns a shared reward encoder and feedback-specific likelihood decoders and is trained by optimizing a single evidence lower bound. Our approach avoids reducing feedback to a common intermediate representation and eliminates the need for manual loss balancing. Across discrete and continuous-control benchmarks, we show that jointly inferred reward posteriors outperform single-type baselines, exploit complementary information across feedback types, and yield policies that are more robust to environment perturbations. The inferred reward uncertainty further provides interpretable signals for analyzing model confidence and consistency across feedback types.

Explainable Mapper: Charting LLM Embedding Spaces Using Perturbation-Based Explanation and Verification Agents

Large language models (LLMs) produce high-dimensional embeddings that capture rich semantic and syntactic relationships between words, sentences, and concepts. Investigating the topological structures of LLM embedding spaces via mapper graphs enables us to understand their underlying structures. Specifically, a mapper graph summarizes the topological structure of the embedding space, where each node represents a topological neighborhood (containing a cluster of embeddings), and an edge connects two nodes if their corresponding neighborhoods overlap. However, manually exploring these embedding spaces to uncover encoded linguistic properties requires considerable human effort. To address this challenge, we introduce a framework for semi-automatic annotation of these embedding properties. To organize the exploration process, we first define a taxonomy of explorable elements within a mapper graph such as nodes, edges, paths, components, and trajectories. The annotation of these elements is executed through two types of customizable LLM-based agents that employ perturbation techniques for scalable and automated analysis. These agents help to explore and explain the characteristics of mapper elements and verify the robustness of the generated explanations. We instantiate the framework within a visual analytics workspace and demonstrate its effectiveness through case studies. In particular, we replicate findings from prior research on BERT's embedding properties across various layers of its architecture and provide further observations into the linguistic properties of topological neighborhoods.

Concept-Level Explainability for Auditing & Steering LLM Responses

As large language models (LLMs) become widely deployed, concerns about their safety and alignment grow. An approach to steer LLM behavior, such as mitigating biases or defending against jailbreaks, is to identify which parts of a prompt influence specific aspects of the model's output. Token-level attribution methods offer a promising solution, but still struggle in text generation, explaining the presence of each token in the output separately, rather than the underlying semantics of the entire LLM response. We introduce ConceptX, a model-agnostic, concept-level explainability method that identifies the concepts, i.e., semantically rich tokens in the prompt, and assigns them importance based on the outputs' semantic similarity. Unlike current token-level methods, ConceptX also offers to preserve context integrity through in-place token replacements and supports flexible explanation goals, e.g., gender bias. ConceptX enables both auditing, by uncovering sources of bias, and steering, by modifying prompts to shift the sentiment or reduce the harmfulness of LLM responses, without requiring retraining. Across three LLMs, ConceptX outperforms token-level methods like TokenSHAP in both faithfulness and human alignment. Steering tasks boost sentiment shift by 0.252 versus 0.131 for random edits and lower attack success rates from 0.463 to 0.242, outperforming attribution and paraphrasing baselines. While prompt engineering and self-explaining methods sometimes yield safer responses, ConceptX offers a transparent and faithful alternative for improving LLM safety and alignment, demonstrating the practical value of attribution-based explainability in guiding LLM behavior.

LayerFlow: Layer-wise Exploration of LLM Embeddings using Uncertainty-aware Interlinked Projections

Large language models (LLMs) represent words through contextual word embeddings encoding different language properties like semantics and syntax. Understanding these properties is crucial, especially for researchers investigating language model capabilities, employing embeddings for tasks related to text similarity, or evaluating the reasons behind token importance as measured through attribution methods. Applications for embedding exploration frequently involve dimensionality reduction techniques, which reduce high-dimensional vectors to two dimensions used as coordinates in a scatterplot. This data transformation step introduces uncertainty that can be propagated to the visual representation and influence users' interpretation of the data. To communicate such uncertainties, we present LayerFlow - a visual analytics workspace that displays embeddings in an interlinked projection design and communicates the transformation, representation, and interpretation uncertainty. In particular, to hint at potential data distortions and uncertainties, the workspace includes several visual components, such as convex hulls showing 2D and HD clusters, data point pairwise distances, cluster summaries, and projection quality metrics. We show the usability of the presented workspace through replication and expert case studies that highlight the need to communicate uncertainty through multiple visual components and different data perspectives.

Reward Learning from Multiple Feedback Types

Learning rewards from preference feedback has become an important tool in the alignment of agentic models. Preference-based feedback, often implemented as a binary comparison between multiple completions, is an established method to acquire large-scale human feedback. However, human feedback in other contexts is often much more diverse. Such diverse feedback can better support the goals of a human annotator, and the simultaneous use of multiple sources might be mutually informative for the learning process or carry type-dependent biases for the reward learning process. Despite these potential benefits, learning from different feedback types has yet to be explored extensively. In this paper, we bridge this gap by enabling experimentation and evaluating multi-type feedback in a broad set of environments. We present a process to generate high-quality simulated feedback of six different types. Then, we implement reward models and downstream RL training for all six feedback types. Based on the simulated feedback, we investigate the use of types of feedback across ten RL environments and compare them to pure preference-based baselines. We show empirically that diverse types of feedback can be utilized and lead to strong reward modeling performance. This work is the first strong indicator of the potential of multi-type feedback for RLHF.

Mapping out the Space of Human Feedback for Reinforcement Learning: A Conceptual Framework

Reinforcement Learning from Human feedback (RLHF) has become a powerful tool to fine-tune or train agentic machine learning models. Similar to how humans interact in social contexts, we can use many types of feedback to communicate our preferences, intentions, and knowledge to an RL agent. However, applications of human feedback in RL are often limited in scope and disregard human factors. In this work, we bridge the gap between machine learning and human-computer interaction efforts by developing a shared understanding of human feedback in interactive learning scenarios. We first introduce a taxonomy of feedback types for reward-based learning from human feedback based on nine key dimensions. Our taxonomy allows for unifying human-centered, interface-centered, and model-centered aspects. In addition, we identify seven quality metrics of human feedback influencing both the human ability to express feedback and the agent's ability to learn from the feedback. Based on the feedback taxonomy and quality criteria, we derive requirements and design choices for systems learning from human feedback. We relate these requirements and design choices to existing work in interactive machine learning. In the process, we identify gaps in existing work and future research opportunities. We call for interdisciplinary collaboration to harness the full potential of reinforcement learning with data-driven co-adaptive modeling and varied interaction mechanics.

Why context matters in VQA and Reasoning: Semantic interventions for VLM input modalities

The various limitations of Generative AI, such as hallucinations and model failures, have made it crucial to understand the role of different modalities in Visual Language Model (VLM) predictions. Our work investigates how the integration of information from image and text modalities influences the performance and behavior of VLMs in visual question answering (VQA) and reasoning tasks. We measure this effect through answer accuracy, reasoning quality, model uncertainty, and modality relevance. We study the interplay between text and image modalities in different configurations where visual content is essential for solving the VQA task. Our contributions include (1) the Semantic Interventions (SI)-VQA dataset, (2) a benchmark study of various VLM architectures under different modality configurations, and (3) the Interactive Semantic Interventions (ISI) tool. The SI-VQA dataset serves as the foundation for the benchmark, while the ISI tool provides an interface to test and apply semantic interventions in image and text inputs, enabling more fine-grained analysis. Our results show that complementary information between modalities improves answer and reasoning quality, while contradictory information harms model performance and confidence. Image text annotations have minimal impact on accuracy and uncertainty, slightly increasing image relevance. Attention analysis confirms the dominant role of image inputs over text in VQA tasks. In this study, we evaluate state-of-the-art VLMs that allow us to extract attention coefficients for each modality. A key finding is PaliGemma's harmful overconfidence, which poses a higher risk of silent failures compared to the LLaVA models. This work sets the foundation for rigorous analysis of modality integration, supported by datasets specifically designed for this purpose.

Navigating the Maze of Explainable AI: A Systematic Approach to Evaluating Methods and Metrics

Explainable AI (XAI) is a rapidly growing domain with a myriad of proposed methods as well as metrics aiming to evaluate their efficacy. However, current studies are often of limited scope, examining only a handful of XAI methods and ignoring underlying design parameters for performance, such as the model architecture or the nature of input data. Moreover, they often rely on one or a few metrics and neglect thorough validation, increasing the risk of selection bias and ignoring discrepancies among metrics. These shortcomings leave practitioners confused about which method to choose for their problem. In response, we introduce LATEC, a large-scale benchmark that critically evaluates 17 prominent XAI methods using 20 distinct metrics. We systematically incorporate vital design parameters like varied architectures and diverse input modalities, resulting in 7,560 examined combinations. Through LATEC, we showcase the high risk of conflicting metrics leading to unreliable rankings and consequently propose a more robust evaluation scheme. Further, we comprehensively evaluate various XAI methods to assist practitioners in selecting appropriate methods aligning with their needs. Curiously, the emerging top-performing method, Expected Gradients, is not examined in any relevant related study. LATEC reinforces its role in future XAI research by publicly releasing all 326k saliency maps and 378k metric scores as a (meta-)evaluation dataset.