Alignment tuning is crucial for ensuring large language models (LLMs) behave ethically and helpfully. Current alignment approaches require high-quality annotations and significant training resources. This paper proposes a low-cost, tuning-free method using in-context learning (ICL) to enhance LLM alignment. Through an analysis of high-quality ICL demos, we identified style as a key factor influencing LLM alignment capabilities and explicitly restyled ICL exemplars based on this stylistic framework. Additionally, we combined the restyled demos to achieve a balance between the two conflicting aspects of LLM alignment--factuality and safety. We packaged the restyled examples as prompts to trigger few-shot learning, improving LLM alignment. Compared to the best baseline approach, with an average score of 5.00 as the maximum, our method achieves a maximum 0.10 increase on the Alpaca task (from 4.50 to 4.60), a 0.22 enhancement on the Just-eval benchmark (from 4.34 to 4.56), and a maximum improvement of 0.32 (from 3.53 to 3.85) on the MT-Bench dataset. We release the code and data at https://github.com/AnonymousCode-ComputerScience/RIDE.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as conversational agents, exploiting their capabilities in various sectors such as education, law, medicine, and more. However, LLMs are often subjected to context-shifting behaviour, resulting in a lack of consistent and interpretable personality-aligned interactions. Adherence to psychological traits lacks comprehensive analysis, especially in the case of dyadic (pairwise) conversations. We examine this challenge from two viewpoints, initially using two conversation agents to generate a discourse on a certain topic with an assigned personality from the OCEAN framework (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) as High/Low for each trait. This is followed by using multiple judge agents to infer the original traits assigned to explore prediction consistency, inter-model agreement, and alignment with the assigned personality. Our findings indicate that while LLMs can be guided toward personality-driven dialogue, their ability to maintain personality traits varies significantly depending on the combination of models and discourse settings. These inconsistencies emphasise the challenges in achieving stable and interpretable personality-aligned interactions in LLMs.

Air quality prediction is key to mitigating health impacts and guiding decisions, yet existing models tend to focus on temporal trends while overlooking spatial generalization. We propose AQ-Net, a spatiotemporal reanalysis model for both observed and unobserved stations in the near future. AQ-Net utilizes the LSTM and multi-head attention for the temporal regression. We also propose a cyclic encoding technique to ensure continuous time representation. To learn fine-grained spatial air quality estimation, we incorporate AQ-Net with the neural kNN to explore feature-based interpolation, such that we can fill the spatial gaps given coarse observation stations. To demonstrate the efficiency of our model for spatiotemporal reanalysis, we use data from 2013-2017 collected in northern China for PM2.5 analysis. Extensive experiments show that AQ-Net excels in air quality reanalysis, highlighting the potential of hybrid spatio-temporal models to better capture environmental dynamics, especially in urban areas where both spatial and temporal variability are critical.

Neural scaling laws have revolutionized the design and optimization of large-scale AI models by revealing predictable relationships between model size, dataset volume, and computational resources. Early research established power-law relationships in model performance, leading to compute-optimal scaling strategies. However, recent studies highlighted their limitations across architectures, modalities, and deployment contexts. Sparse models, mixture-of-experts, retrieval-augmented learning, and multimodal models often deviate from traditional scaling patterns. Moreover, scaling behaviors vary across domains such as vision, reinforcement learning, and fine-tuning, underscoring the need for more nuanced approaches. In this survey, we synthesize insights from over 50 studies, examining the theoretical foundations, empirical findings, and practical implications of scaling laws. We also explore key challenges, including data efficiency, inference scaling, and architecture-specific constraints, advocating for adaptive scaling strategies tailored to real-world applications. We suggest that while scaling laws provide a useful guide, they do not always generalize across all architectures and training strategies.

The computational cost of softmax-based attention in transformers limits their applicability to long-context tasks. Adaptive sparsity, of which $\alpha$-entmax attention is an example, offers a flexible data-dependent alternative, but existing implementations are inefficient and do not leverage the sparsity to obtain runtime and memory gains. In this work, we propose AdaSplash, which combines the efficiency of GPU-optimized algorithms with the sparsity benefits of $\alpha$-entmax. We first introduce a hybrid Halley-bisection algorithm, resulting in a 7-fold reduction in the number of iterations needed to compute the $\alpha$-entmax transformation. Then, we implement custom Triton kernels to efficiently handle adaptive sparsity. Experiments with RoBERTa and ModernBERT for text classification and single-vector retrieval, along with GPT-2 for language modeling, show that our method achieves substantial improvements in runtime and memory efficiency compared to existing $\alpha$-entmax implementations. It approaches -- and in some cases surpasses -- the efficiency of highly optimized softmax implementations like FlashAttention-2, enabling long-context training while maintaining strong task performance.

How we should design and interact with social artificial intelligence depends on the socio-relational role the AI is meant to emulate or occupy. In human society, relationships such as teacher-student, parent-child, neighbors, siblings, or employer-employee are governed by specific norms that prescribe or proscribe cooperative functions including hierarchy, care, transaction, and mating. These norms shape our judgments of what is appropriate for each partner. For example, workplace norms may allow a boss to give orders to an employee, but not vice versa, reflecting hierarchical and transactional expectations. As AI agents and chatbots powered by large language models are increasingly designed to serve roles analogous to human positions - such as assistant, mental health provider, tutor, or romantic partner - it is imperative to examine whether and how human relational norms should extend to human-AI interactions. Our analysis explores how differences between AI systems and humans, such as the absence of conscious experience and immunity to fatigue, may affect an AI's capacity to fulfill relationship-specific functions and adhere to corresponding norms. This analysis, which is a collaborative effort by philosophers, psychologists, relationship scientists, ethicists, legal experts, and AI researchers, carries important implications for AI systems design, user behavior, and regulation. While we accept that AI systems can offer significant benefits such as increased availability and consistency in certain socio-relational roles, they also risk fostering unhealthy dependencies or unrealistic expectations that could spill over into human-human relationships. We propose that understanding and thoughtfully shaping (or implementing) suitable human-AI relational norms will be crucial for ensuring that human-AI interactions are ethical, trustworthy, and favorable to human well-being.

How should one jointly design tests and the arrangement of agencies to administer these tests (testing procedure)? To answer this question, we analyze a model where a principal must use multiple tests to screen an agent with a multi-dimensional type, knowing that the agent can change his type at a cost. We identify a new tradeoff between setting difficult tests and using a difficult testing procedure. We compare two settings: (1) the agent only misrepresents his type (manipulation) and (2) the agent improves his actual type (investment). Examples include interviews, regulations, and data classification. We show that in the manipulation setting, stringent tests combined with an easy procedure, i.e., offering tests sequentially in a fixed order, is optimal. In contrast, in the investment setting, non-stringent tests with a difficult procedure, i.e., offering tests simultaneously, is optimal; however, under mild conditions offering them sequentially in a random order may be as good. Our results suggest that whether the agent manipulates or invests in his type determines which arrangement of agencies is optimal.

This paper introduces PeopleJoin, a benchmark for evaluating LM-mediated collaborative problem solving. Given a user request, PeopleJoin agents must identify teammates who might be able to assist, converse with these teammates to gather information, and finally compile a useful answer or summary for the original user. PeopleJoin comprises two evaluation domains: PeopleJoin-QA, focused on questions about tabular data, and PeopleJoin-DocCreation, focused on document creation tasks. The two domains are adapted from existing NLP benchmarks for database question answering and multi-document summarization; here, however, the information needed to complete these tasks is distributed across synthetic ``organizations'' of 2--20 users, simulating natural multi-user collaboration scenarios. We implemented several popular LM agent architectures, evaluating their accuracy and efficiency at completing tasks, and highlight new research questions that can be studied using PeopleJoin.

The "right to be forgotten" and the data privacy laws that encode it have motivated machine unlearning since its earliest days. Now, an inbound wave of artificial intelligence regulations - like the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) - potentially offer important new use cases for machine unlearning. However, this position paper argues, this opportunity will only be realized if researchers, aided by policymakers, proactively bridge the (sometimes sizable) gaps between machine unlearning's state of the art and its potential applications to AI regulation. To demonstrate this point, we use the AIA as an example. Specifically, we deliver a "state of the union" as regards machine unlearning's current potential for aiding compliance with the AIA. This starts with a precise cataloging of the potential applications of machine unlearning to AIA compliance. For each, we flag any legal ambiguities clouding the potential application and, moreover, flag the technical gaps that exist between the potential application and the state of the art of machine unlearning. Finally, we end with a call to action: for both machine learning researchers and policymakers, to, respectively, solve the open technical and legal questions that will unlock machine unlearning's potential to assist compliance with the AIA - and other AI regulation like it.

Recognizing events and their coreferential mentions in a document is essential for understanding semantic meanings of text. The existing research on event coreference resolution is mostly limited to news articles. In this paper, we present the first dataset for the legal domain, LegalCore, which has been annotated with comprehensive event and event coreference information. The legal contract documents we annotated in this dataset are several times longer than news articles, with an average length of around 25k tokens per document. The annotations show that legal documents have dense event mentions and feature both short-distance and super long-distance coreference links between event mentions. We further benchmark mainstream Large Language Models (LLMs) on this dataset for both event detection and event coreference resolution tasks, and find that this dataset poses significant challenges for state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs, which perform significantly worse than a supervised baseline. We will publish the dataset as well as the code.