Daily Papers

Safety alignment aims to prevent Large Language Models (LLMs) from responding to harmful queries. To strengthen safety protections, jailbreak methods are developed to simulate malicious attacks and uncover vulnerabilities. In this paper, we introduce HILL (Hiding Intention by Learning from LLMs), a novel jailbreak approach that systematically transforms imperative harmful requests into learning-style questions with only straightforward hypotheticality indicators. Further, we introduce two new metrics to thoroughly evaluate the utility of jailbreak methods. Experiments on the AdvBench dataset across a wide range of models demonstrate HILL's strong effectiveness, generalizability, and harmfulness. It achieves top attack success rates on the majority of models and across malicious categories while maintaining high efficiency with concise prompts. Results of various defense methods show the robustness of HILL, with most defenses having mediocre effects or even increasing the attack success rates. Moreover, the assessment on our constructed safe prompts reveals inherent limitations of LLMs' safety mechanisms and flaws in defense methods. This work exposes significant vulnerabilities of safety measures against learning-style elicitation, highlighting a critical challenge of balancing helpfulness and safety alignments.

Conversational interfaces provide a flexible and easy way for users to seek information that may otherwise be difficult or inconvenient to obtain. However, existing interfaces generally fall into one of two categories: FAQs, where users must have a concrete question in order to retrieve a general answer, or dialogs, where users must follow a predefined path but may receive a personalized answer. In this paper, we introduce Conversational Tree Search (CTS) as a new task that bridges the gap between FAQ-style information retrieval and task-oriented dialog, allowing domain-experts to define dialog trees which can then be converted to an efficient dialog policy that learns only to ask the questions necessary to navigate a user to their goal. We collect a dataset for the travel reimbursement domain and demonstrate a baseline as well as a novel deep Reinforcement Learning architecture for this task. Our results show that the new architecture combines the positive aspects of both the FAQ and dialog system used in the baseline and achieves higher goal completion while skipping unnecessary questions.

Building on the success of text-based reasoning models like DeepSeek-R1, extending these capabilities to multimodal reasoning holds great promise. While recent works have attempted to adapt DeepSeek-R1-style reinforcement learning (RL) training paradigms to multimodal large language models (MLLM), focusing on domain-specific tasks like math and visual perception, a critical question remains: How can we achieve the general-purpose visual-language reasoning through RL? To address this challenge, we make three key efforts: (1) A novel Scalable Multimodal QA Synthesis pipeline that autonomously generates context-aware, reasoning-centric question-answer (QA) pairs directly from the given images. (2) The open-source WeThink dataset containing over 120K multimodal QA pairs with annotated reasoning paths, curated from 18 diverse dataset sources and covering various question domains. (3) A comprehensive exploration of RL on our dataset, incorporating a hybrid reward mechanism that combines rule-based verification with model-based assessment to optimize RL training efficiency across various task domains. Across 14 diverse MLLM benchmarks, we demonstrate that our WeThink dataset significantly enhances performance, from mathematical reasoning to diverse general multimodal tasks. Moreover, we show that our automated data pipeline can continuously increase data diversity to further improve model performance.

We propose Reinforcement Learning with Explicit Human Values (RLEV), a method that aligns Large Language Model (LLM) optimization directly with quantifiable human value signals. While Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) effectively trains models in objective domains using binary correctness rewards, it overlooks that not all tasks are equally significant. RLEV extends this framework by incorporating human-defined value signals directly into the reward function. Using exam-style data with explicit ground-truth value labels, RLEV consistently outperforms correctness-only baselines across multiple RL algorithms and model scales. Crucially, RLEV policies not only improve value-weighted accuracy but also learn a value-sensitive termination policy: concise for low-value prompts, thorough for high-value ones. We demonstrate this behavior stems from value-weighted gradient amplification on end-of-sequence tokens. Ablation studies confirm the gain is causally linked to value alignment. RLEV remains robust under noisy value signals, such as difficulty-based labels, demonstrating that optimizing for an explicit utility function offers a practical path to aligning LLMs with human priorities.

In disentangling the heterogeneity observed in psychopathology, personality of the patients is considered crucial. While it has been demonstrated that personality traits are reflected in the language used by a patient, we hypothesize that this enables automatic inference of the personality type directly from speech utterances, potentially more accurately than through a traditional questionnaire-based approach explicitly designed for personality classification. To validate this hypothesis, we adopt natural language processing (NLP) and standard machine learning tools for classification. We test this on a dataset of recorded clinical diagnostic interviews (CDI) on a sample of 79 patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) -- a condition for which differentiated treatment based on personality styles has been advocated -- and classified into anaclitic and introjective personality styles. We start by analyzing the interviews to see which linguistic features are associated with each style, in order to gain a better understanding of the styles. Then, we develop automatic classifiers based on (a) standardized questionnaire responses; (b) basic text features, i.e., TF-IDF scores of words and word sequences; (c) more advanced text features, using LIWC (linguistic inquiry and word count) and context-aware features using BERT (bidirectional encoder representations from transformers); (d) audio features. We find that automated classification with language-derived features (i.e., based on LIWC) significantly outperforms questionnaire-based classification models. Furthermore, the best performance is achieved by combining LIWC with the questionnaire features. This suggests that more work should be put into developing linguistically based automated techniques for characterizing personality, however questionnaires still to some extent complement such methods.

Recent studies show that sentence-level extractive QA, i.e., based on Answer Sentence Selection (AS2), is outperformed by Generation-based QA (GenQA) models, which generate answers using the top-k answer sentences ranked by AS2 models (a la retrieval-augmented generation style). In this paper, we propose a novel training paradigm for GenQA using supervision from automatic QA evaluation models (GAVA). Specifically, we propose three strategies to transfer knowledge from these QA evaluation models to a GenQA model: (i) augmenting training data with answers generated by the GenQA model and labelled by GAVA (either statically, before training, or (ii) dynamically, at every training epoch); and (iii) using the GAVA score for weighting the generator loss during the learning of the GenQA model. We evaluate our proposed methods on two academic and one industrial dataset, obtaining a significant improvement in answering accuracy over the previous state of the art.

Answering complex natural language questions often necessitates multi-step reasoning and integrating external information. Several systems have combined knowledge retrieval with a large language model (LLM) to answer such questions. These systems, however, suffer from various failure cases, and we cannot directly train them end-to-end to fix such failures, as interaction with external knowledge is non-differentiable. To address these deficiencies, we define a ReAct-style LLM agent with the ability to reason and act upon external knowledge. We further refine the agent through a ReST-like method that iteratively trains on previous trajectories, employing growing-batch reinforcement learning with AI feedback for continuous self-improvement and self-distillation. Starting from a prompted large model and after just two iterations of the algorithm, we can produce a fine-tuned small model that achieves comparable performance on challenging compositional question-answering benchmarks with two orders of magnitude fewer parameters.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in solving mathematical problems, with code-based solutions proving particularly effective. However, the best practice to leverage coding instruction data to enhance mathematical reasoning remains underexplored. This study investigates three key questions: (1) How do different coding styles of mathematical code-based rationales impact LLMs' learning performance? (2) Can general-domain coding instructions improve performance? (3) How does integrating textual rationales with code-based ones during training enhance mathematical reasoning abilities? Our findings reveal that code-based rationales with concise comments, descriptive naming, and hardcoded solutions are beneficial, while improvements from general-domain coding instructions and textual rationales are relatively minor. Based on these insights, we propose CoinMath, a learning strategy designed to enhance mathematical reasoning by diversifying the coding styles of code-based rationales. CoinMath generates a variety of code-based rationales incorporating concise comments, descriptive naming conventions, and hardcoded solutions. Experimental results demonstrate that CoinMath significantly outperforms its baseline model, MAmmoTH, one of the SOTA math LLMs.

As the most public component of the Supreme Court's decision-making process, oral argument receives an out-sized share of attention in the popular media. Despite its prominence, however, the basic function and operation of oral argument as an institution remains poorly understood, as political scientists and legal scholars continue to debate even the most fundamental questions about its role. Past study of oral argument has tended to focus on discrete, quantifiable attributes of oral argument, such as the number of questions asked to each advocate, the party of the Justices' appointing president, or the ideological implications of the case on appeal. Such studies allow broad generalizations about oral argument and judicial decision making: Justices tend to vote in accordance with their ideological preferences, and they tend to ask more questions when they are skeptical of a party's position. But they tell us little about the actual goings on at oral argument -- the running dialog between Justice and advocate that is the heart of the institution. This Article fills that void, using machine learning techniques to, for the first time, construct predictive models of judicial decision making based not on oral argument's superficial features or on factors external to oral argument, such as where the case falls on a liberal-conservative spectrum, but on the actual content of the oral argument itself -- the Justices' questions to each side. The resultant models offer an important new window into aspects of oral argument that have long resisted empirical study, including the Justices' individual questioning styles, how each expresses skepticism, and which of the Justices' questions are most central to oral argument dialog.