PETS: A Principled Framework Towards Optimal Trajectory Allocation for Efficient Test-Time Self-Consistency

Test-time scaling can improve model performance by aggregating stochastic reasoning trajectories. However, achieving sample-efficient test-time self-consistency under a limited budget remains an open challenge. We introduce PETS (Principled and Efficient Test-TimeSelf-Consistency), which initiates a principled study of trajectory allocation through an optimization framework. Central to our approach is the self-consistency rate, a new measure defined as agreement with the infinite-budget majority vote. This formulation makes sample-efficient test-time allocation theoretically grounded and amenable to rigorous analysis. We study both offline and online settings. In the offline regime, where all questions are known in advance, we connect trajectory allocation to crowdsourcing, a classic and well-developed area, by modeling reasoning traces as workers. This perspective allows us to leverage rich existing theory, yielding theoretical guarantees and an efficient majority-voting-based allocation algorithm. In the online streaming regime, where questions arrive sequentially and allocations must be made on the fly, we propose a novel method inspired by the offline framework. Our approach adapts budgets to question difficulty while preserving strong theoretical guarantees and computational efficiency. Experiments show that PETS consistently outperforms uniform allocation. On GPQA, PETS achieves perfect self-consistency in both settings while reducing the sampling budget by up to 75% (offline) and 55% (online) relative to uniform allocation. Code is available at https://github.com/ZDCSlab/PETS.

Whom to Query for What: Adaptive Group Elicitation via Multi-Turn LLM Interactions

Eliciting information to reduce uncertainty about latent group-level properties from surveys and other collective assessments requires allocating limited questioning effort under real costs and missing data. Although large language models enable adaptive, multi-turn interactions in natural language, most existing elicitation methods optimize what to ask with a fixed respondent pool, and do not adapt respondent selection or leverage population structure when responses are partial or incomplete. To address this gap, we study adaptive group elicitation, a multi-round setting where an agent adaptively selects both questions and respondents under explicit query and participation budgets. We propose a theoretically grounded framework that combines (i) an LLM-based expected information gain objective for scoring candidate questions with (ii) heterogeneous graph neural network propagation that aggregates observed responses and participant attributes to impute missing responses and guide per-round respondent selection. This closed-loop procedure queries a small, informative subset of individuals while inferring population-level responses via structured similarity. Across three real-world opinion datasets, our method consistently improves population-level response prediction under constrained budgets, including a >12% relative gain on CES at a 10% respondent budget.

Rubrics as an Attack Surface: Stealthy Preference Drift in LLM Judges

Evaluation and alignment pipelines for large language models increasingly rely on LLM-based judges, whose behavior is guided by natural-language rubrics and validated on benchmarks. We identify a previously under-recognized vulnerability in this workflow, which we term Rubric-Induced Preference Drift (RIPD). Even when rubric edits pass benchmark validation, they can still produce systematic and directional shifts in a judge's preferences on target domains. Because rubrics serve as a high-level decision interface, such drift can emerge from seemingly natural, criterion-preserving edits and remain difficult to detect through aggregate benchmark metrics or limited spot-checking. We further show this vulnerability can be exploited through rubric-based preference attacks, in which benchmark-compliant rubric edits steer judgments away from a fixed human or trusted reference on target domains, systematically inducing RIPD and reducing target-domain accuracy up to 9.5% (helpfulness) and 27.9% (harmlessness). When these judgments are used to generate preference labels for downstream post-training, the induced bias propagates through alignment pipelines and becomes internalized in trained policies. This leads to persistent and systematic drift in model behavior. Overall, our findings highlight evaluation rubrics as a sensitive and manipulable control interface, revealing a system-level alignment risk that extends beyond evaluator reliability alone. The code is available at: https://github.com/ZDCSlab/Rubrics-as-an-Attack-Surface. Warning: Certain sections may contain potentially harmful content that may not be appropriate for all readers.

Reliable and Responsible Foundation Models: A Comprehensive Survey

Foundation models, including Large Language Models (LLMs), Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), Image Generative Models (i.e, Text-to-Image Models and Image-Editing Models), and Video Generative Models, have become essential tools with broad applications across various domains such as law, medicine, education, finance, science, and beyond. As these models see increasing real-world deployment, ensuring their reliability and responsibility has become critical for academia, industry, and government. This survey addresses the reliable and responsible development of foundation models. We explore critical issues, including bias and fairness, security and privacy, uncertainty, explainability, and distribution shift. Our research also covers model limitations, such as hallucinations, as well as methods like alignment and Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content (AIGC) detection. For each area, we review the current state of the field and outline concrete future research directions. Additionally, we discuss the intersections between these areas, highlighting their connections and shared challenges. We hope our survey fosters the development of foundation models that are not only powerful but also ethical, trustworthy, reliable, and socially responsible.

Recommending Best Paper Awards for ML/AI Conferences via the Isotonic Mechanism

Machine learning and artificial intelligence conferences such as NeurIPS and ICML now regularly receive tens of thousands of submissions, posing significant challenges to maintaining the quality and consistency of the peer review process. This challenge is particularly acute for best paper awards, which are an important part of the peer review process, yet whose selection has increasingly become a subject of debate in recent years. In this paper, we introduce an author-assisted mechanism to facilitate the selection of best paper awards. Our method employs the Isotonic Mechanism for eliciting authors' assessments of their own submissions in the form of a ranking, which is subsequently utilized to adjust the raw review scores for optimal estimation of the submissions' ground-truth quality. We demonstrate that authors are incentivized to report truthfully when their utility is a convex additive function of the adjusted scores, and we validate this convexity assumption for best paper awards using publicly accessible review data of ICLR from 2019 to 2023 and NeurIPS from 2021 to 2023. Crucially, in the special case where an author has a single quota -- that is, may nominate only one paper -- we prove that truthfulness holds even when the utility function is merely nondecreasing and additive. This finding represents a substantial relaxation of the assumptions required in prior work. For practical implementation, we extend our mechanism to accommodate the common scenario of overlapping authorship. Finally, simulation results demonstrate that our mechanism significantly improves the quality of papers selected for awards.

Performative Risk Control: Calibrating Models for Reliable Deployment under Performativity

Calibrating blackbox machine learning models to achieve risk control is crucial to ensure reliable decision-making. A rich line of literature has been studying how to calibrate a model so that its predictions satisfy explicit finite-sample statistical guarantees under a fixed, static, and unknown data-generating distribution. However, prediction-supported decisions may influence the outcome they aim to predict, a phenomenon named performativity of predictions, which is commonly seen in social science and economics. In this paper, we introduce Performative Risk Control, a framework to calibrate models to achieve risk control under performativity with provable theoretical guarantees. Specifically, we provide an iteratively refined calibration process, where we ensure the predictions are improved and risk-controlled throughout the process. We also study different types of risk measures and choices of tail bounds. Lastly, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework by numerical experiments on the task of predicting credit default risk. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first one to study statistically rigorous risk control under performativity, which will serve as an important safeguard against a wide range of strategic manipulation in decision-making processes.

Statistical Inference under Performativity

Performativity of predictions refers to the phenomena that prediction-informed decisions may influence the target they aim to predict, which is widely observed in policy-making in social sciences and economics. In this paper, we initiate the study of statistical inference under performativity. Our contribution is two-fold. First, we build a central limit theorem for estimation and inference under performativity, which enables inferential purposes in policy-making such as constructing confidence intervals or testing hypotheses. Second, we further leverage the derived central limit theorem to investigate prediction-powered inference (PPI) under performativity, which is based on a small labeled dataset and a much larger dataset of machine-learning predictions. This enables us to obtain more precise estimation and improved confidence regions for the model parameter (i.e., policy) of interest in performative prediction. We demonstrate the power of our framework by numerical experiments. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first one to establish statistical inference under performativity, which brings up new challenges and inference settings that we believe will add significant values to policy-making, statistics, and machine learning.

Synergistic Weak-Strong Collaboration by Aligning Preferences

Current Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in general reasoning yet struggle with specialized tasks requiring proprietary or domain-specific knowledge. Fine-tuning large models for every niche application is often infeasible due to black-box constraints and high computational overhead. To address this, we propose a collaborative framework that pairs a specialized weak model with a general strong model. The weak model, tailored to specific domains, produces initial drafts and background information, while the strong model leverages its advanced reasoning to refine these drafts, extending LLMs' capabilities to critical yet specialized tasks. To optimize this collaboration, we introduce a collaborative feedback to fine-tunes the weak model, which quantifies the influence of the weak model's contributions in the collaboration procedure and establishes preference pairs to guide preference tuning of the weak model. We validate our framework through experiments on three domains. We find that the collaboration significantly outperforms each model alone by leveraging complementary strengths. Moreover, aligning the weak model with the collaborative preference further enhances overall performance.

Conformal Tail Risk Control for Large Language Model Alignment

Recent developments in large language models (LLMs) have led to their widespread usage for various tasks. The prevalence of LLMs in society implores the assurance on the reliability of their performance. In particular, risk-sensitive applications demand meticulous attention to unexpectedly poor outcomes, i.e., tail events, for instance, toxic answers, humiliating language, and offensive outputs. Due to the costly nature of acquiring human annotations, general-purpose scoring models have been created to automate the process of quantifying these tail events. This phenomenon introduces potential human-machine misalignment between the respective scoring mechanisms. In this work, we present a lightweight calibration framework for blackbox models that ensures the alignment of humans and machines with provable guarantees. Our framework provides a rigorous approach to controlling any distortion risk measure that is characterized by a weighted average of quantiles of the loss incurred by the LLM with high confidence. The theoretical foundation of our method relies on the connection between conformal risk control and a traditional family of statistics, i.e., L-statistics. To demonstrate the utility of our framework, we conduct comprehensive experiments that address the issue of human-machine misalignment.

Improving Predictor Reliability with Selective Recalibration

A reliable deep learning system should be able to accurately express its confidence with respect to its predictions, a quality known as calibration. One of the most effective ways to produce reliable confidence estimates with a pre-trained model is by applying a post-hoc recalibration method. Popular recalibration methods like temperature scaling are typically fit on a small amount of data and work in the model's output space, as opposed to the more expressive feature embedding space, and thus usually have only one or a handful of parameters. However, the target distribution to which they are applied is often complex and difficult to fit well with such a function. To this end we propose \textit{selective recalibration}, where a selection model learns to reject some user-chosen proportion of the data in order to allow the recalibrator to focus on regions of the input space that can be well-captured by such a model. We provide theoretical analysis to motivate our algorithm, and test our method through comprehensive experiments on difficult medical imaging and zero-shot classification tasks. Our results show that selective recalibration consistently leads to significantly lower calibration error than a wide range of selection and recalibration baselines.