Supervised machine learning assumes that labeled data provide accurate measurements of the concepts models are meant to learn. Yet in practice, human labeling introduces systematic variation arising from ambiguous items, divergent interpretations, and simple mistakes. Machine learning research commonly treats all disagreement as noise, which obscures these distinctions and limits our understanding of what models actually learn. This paper reframes annotation as a measurement process and introduces a statistical framework for decomposing labeling outcomes into interpretable sources of variation: instance difficulty, annotator bias, situational noise, and relational alignment. The framework extends classical measurement-error models to accommodate both shared and individualized notions of truth, reflecting traditional and human label variation interpretations of error, and provides a diagnostic for assessing which regime better characterizes a given task. Applying the proposed model to a multi-annotator natural language inference dataset, we find empirical evidence for all four theorized components and demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. We conclude with implications for data-centric machine learning and outline how this approach can guide the development of a more systematic science of labeling.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as a central framework for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Despite its practical success, RLHF raises fundamental statistical questions because it relies on noisy, subjective, and often heterogeneous feedback to learn reward models and optimize policies. This survey provides a statistical perspective on RLHF, focusing primarily on the LLM alignment setting. We introduce the main components of RLHF, including supervised fine-tuning, reward modeling, and policy optimization, and relate them to familiar statistical ideas such as Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) model, latent utility estimation, active learning, experimental design, and uncertainty quantification. We review methods for learning reward functions from pairwise preference data and for optimizing policies through both two-stage RLHF pipelines and emerging one-stage approaches such as direct preference optimization. We further discuss recent extensions including reinforcement learning from AI feedback, inference-time algorithms, and reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, as well as benchmark datasets, evaluation protocols, and open-source frameworks that support RLHF research. We conclude by highlighting open challenges in RLHF. An accompanying GitHub demo https://github.com/Pangpang-Liu/RLHF_demo illustrates key components of the RLHF pipeline.

Standard decoding strategies for text generation, including top-k, nucleus sampling, and contrastive search, select tokens based on likelihood, restricting selection to high-probability regions. Human language production operates differently: tokens are chosen for communicative appropriateness rather than statistical frequency. This mismatch creates a truncation blind spot: contextually appropriate but statistically rare tokens remain accessible to humans yet unreachable by likelihood-based decoding. We hypothesize this contributes to the detectability of machine-generated text. Analyzing over 1.8 million texts across eight language models, five decoding strategies, and 53 hyperparameter configurations, we find that 8-18% of human-selected tokens fall outside typical truncation boundaries. Simple classifiers trained on predictability and lexical diversity achieve remarkable detection rates. Crucially, neither model scale nor architecture correlates strongly with detectability; truncation parameters account for most variance. Configurations achieving low detectability often produce incoherent text, indicating that evading detection and producing natural text are distinct objectives. These findings suggest detectability is enhanced by likelihood-based token selection, not merely a matter of model capability.

Synthesizing high-fidelity head avatars is a central problem for computer vision and graphics. While head avatar synthesis algorithms have advanced rapidly, the best ones still face great obstacles in real-world scenarios.

When turned on, "GitHub Copilot checks code completion suggestions with their surrounding

The current paradigm of evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) through static benchmarks comes with significant limitations, such as vulnerability to data contamination and a lack of adaptability to the evolving capabilities of LLMs.