To be helpful assistants, AI agents must be aware of their own capabilities and limitations. This includes knowing when to answer from parametric knowledge versus using tools, when to trust tool outputs, and when to abstain or hedge. Such capabilities are hard to teach through supervised fine-tuning because they require constructing examples that reflect the agent's specific capabilities. We therefore propose a radically new approach to teaching agents what they know: \emph{collaborative self-play}. We construct multi-agent collaborations in which the group is rewarded for collectively arriving at correct answers. The desired meta-knowledge emerges from the incentives built into the structure of the interaction. We focus on small societies of agents that have access to heterogeneous tools (corpus-specific retrieval), and therefore must collaborate to maximize their success while minimizing their effort. Experiments show that group-level rewards for multi-agent communities can induce policies that \emph{transfer} to improve tool use and selective prediction in settings where individual agents are deployed in isolation.

Language model alignment has become a critical step in training modern generative language models. The goal of alignment is to finetune a reference model such that the win rate of a sample from the aligned model over a sample from the reference model is high, subject to a KL divergence constraint. Today, we are increasingly using inference-time algorithms (e.g., Best-of-N, controlled decoding, tree search) to decode from language models rather than standard sampling. However, the alignment objective does not capture such inference-time decoding procedures. We show that the existing alignment framework is sub-optimal in view of such inference-time methods. We then modify the alignment objective and propose a framework for inference-aware alignment (IAPO). We prove that for any inference-time decoding algorithm, the optimal solution that optimizes the inference-time win rate of the aligned policy against the reference policy is the solution to the typical RLHF problem with a transformation of the reward. This motivates us to provide the KL-regularized calibrate-and-transform RL (CTRL) algorithm to solve this problem, which involves a reward calibration step and a KL-regularized reward maximization step with a transformation of the calibrated reward. We particularize our study to two important inference-time strategies: best-of-N sampling and best-of-N jailbreaking, where N responses are sampled from the model and the one with the highest or lowest reward is selected. We propose specific transformations for these strategies and demonstrate that our framework offers significant improvements over existing state-of-the-art methods for language model alignment. Empirically, we outperform baselines that are designed without taking inference-time decoding into consideration by 8-12% and 4-9% on inference-time win rates over the Anthropic helpfulness and harmlessness dialog benchmark datasets.

We propose a new programming language called ALTA and a compiler that can map ALTA programs to Transformer weights. ALTA is inspired by RASP, a language proposed by Weiss et al. (2021), and Tracr (Lindner et al., 2023), a compiler from RASP programs to Transformer weights. ALTA complements and extends this prior work, offering the ability to express loops and to compile programs to Universal Transformers, among other advantages. ALTA allows us to constructively show how Transformers can represent length-invariant algorithms for computing parity and addition, as well as a solution to the SCAN benchmark of compositional generalization tasks, without requiring intermediate scratchpad decoding steps. We also propose tools to analyze cases where the expressibility of an algorithm is established, but end-to-end training on a given training set fails to induce behavior consistent with the desired algorithm. To this end, we explore training from ALTA execution traces as a more fine-grained supervision signal. This enables additional experiments and theoretical analyses relating the learnability of various algorithms to data availability and modeling decisions, such as positional encodings. We make the ALTA framework -- language specification, symbolic interpreter, and weight compiler -- available to the community to enable further applications and insights.

A promising approach for improving reasoning in large language models is to use process reward models (PRMs). PRMs provide feedback at each step of a multi-step reasoning trace, potentially improving credit assignment over outcome reward models (ORMs) that only provide feedback at the final step. However, collecting dense, per-step human labels is not scalable, and training PRMs from automatically-labeled data has thus far led to limited gains. To improve a base policy by running search against a PRM or using it as dense rewards for reinforcement learning (RL), we ask: "How should we design process rewards?". Our key insight is that, to be effective, the process reward for a step should measure progress: a change in the likelihood of producing a correct response in the future, before and after taking the step, corresponding to the notion of step-level advantages in RL. Crucially, this progress should be measured under a prover policy distinct from the base policy. We theoretically characterize the set of good provers and our results show that optimizing process rewards from such provers improves exploration during test-time search and online RL. In fact, our characterization shows that weak prover policies can substantially improve a stronger base policy, which we also observe empirically. We validate our claims by training process advantage verifiers (PAVs) to predict progress under such provers, and show that compared to ORMs, test-time search against PAVs is $>8\%$ more accurate, and $1.5-5\times$ more compute-efficient. Online RL with dense rewards from PAVs enables one of the first results with $5-6\times$ gain in sample efficiency, and $>6\%$ gain in accuracy, over ORMs.

Language model (LM) post-training (or alignment) involves maximizing a reward function that is derived from preference annotations. Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) is a popular offline alignment method that trains a policy directly on preference data without the need to train a reward model or apply reinforcement learning. However, typical preference datasets have only a single, or at most a few, annotation per preference pair, which causes DPO to overconfidently assign rewards that trend towards infinite magnitude. This frequently leads to degenerate policies, sometimes causing even the probabilities of the preferred generations to go to zero. In this work, we analyze this phenomenon and propose distillation to get a better proxy for the true preference distribution over generation pairs: we train the LM to produce probabilities that match the distribution induced by a reward model trained on the preference data. Moreover, to account for uncertainty in the reward model we are distilling from, we optimize against a family of reward models that, as a whole, is likely to include at least one reasonable proxy for the preference distribution. Our results show that distilling from such a family of reward models leads to improved robustness to distribution shift in preference annotations, while preserving the simple supervised nature of DPO.

Aligning language models (LMs) based on human-annotated preference data is a crucial step in obtaining practical and performant LM-based systems. However, multilingual human preference data are difficult to obtain at scale, making it challenging to extend this framework to diverse languages. In this work, we evaluate a simple approach for zero-shot cross-lingual alignment, where a reward model is trained on preference data in one source language and directly applied to other target languages. On summarization and open-ended dialog generation, we show that this method is consistently successful under comprehensive evaluation settings, including human evaluation: cross-lingually aligned models are preferred by humans over unaligned models on up to >70% of evaluation instances. We moreover find that a different-language reward model sometimes yields better aligned models than a same-language reward model. We also identify best practices when there is no language-specific data for even supervised finetuning, another component in alignment.

A common approach for aligning language models to human preferences is to first learn a reward model from preference data, and then use this reward model to update the language model. We study two closely related problems that arise in this approach. First, any monotone transformation of the reward model preserves preference ranking; is there a choice that is ``better'' than others? Second, we often wish to align language models to multiple properties: how should we combine multiple reward models? Using a probabilistic interpretation of the alignment procedure, we identify a natural choice for transformation for (the common case of) rewards learned from Bradley-Terry preference models. This derived transformation has two important properties. First, it emphasizes improving poorly-performing outputs, rather than outputs that already score well. This mitigates both underfitting (where some prompts are not improved) and reward hacking (where the model learns to exploit misspecification of the reward model). Second, it enables principled aggregation of rewards by linking summation to logical conjunction: the sum of transformed rewards corresponds to the probability that the output is ``good'' in all measured properties, in a sense we make precise. Experiments aligning language models to be both helpful and harmless using RLHF show substantial improvements over the baseline (non-transformed) approach.

A simple and effective method for the alignment of generative models is the best-of-$n$ policy, where $n$ samples are drawn from a base policy, and ranked based on a reward function, and the highest ranking one is selected. A commonly used analytical expression in the literature claims that the KL divergence between the best-of-$n$ policy and the base policy is equal to $\log (n) - (n-1)/n.$ We disprove the validity of this claim, and show that it is an upper bound on the actual KL divergence. We also explore the tightness of this upper bound in different regimes. Finally, we propose a new estimator for the KL divergence and empirically show that it provides a tight approximation through a few examples.

Reward models play a key role in aligning language model applications towards human preferences. However, this setup creates an incentive for the language model to exploit errors in the reward model to achieve high estimated reward, a phenomenon often termed \emph{reward hacking}. A natural mitigation is to train an ensemble of reward models, aggregating over model outputs to obtain a more robust reward estimate. We explore the application of reward ensembles to alignment at both training time (through reinforcement learning) and inference time (through reranking). First, we show that reward models are \emph{underspecified}: reward models that perform similarly in-distribution can yield very different rewards when used in alignment, due to distribution shift. Second, underspecification results in overoptimization, where alignment to one reward model does not improve reward as measured by another reward model trained on the same data. Third, overoptimization is mitigated by the use of reward ensembles, and ensembles that vary by their \emph{pretraining} seeds lead to better generalization than ensembles that differ only by their \emph{fine-tuning} seeds, with both outperforming individual reward models. However, even pretrain reward ensembles do not eliminate reward hacking: we show several qualitative reward hacking phenomena that are not mitigated by ensembling because all reward models in the ensemble exhibit similar error patterns.

Trustworthy language models should abstain from answering questions when they do not know the answer. However, the answer to a question can be unknown for a variety of reasons. Prior research has focused on the case in which the question is clear and the answer is unambiguous but possibly unknown, but the answer to a question can also be unclear due to uncertainty of the questioner's intent or context. We investigate question answering from this perspective, focusing on answering a subset of questions with a high degree of accuracy, from a set of questions in which many are inherently ambiguous. In this setting, we find that the most reliable approach to decide when to abstain involves quantifying repetition within sampled model outputs, rather than the model's likelihood or self-verification as used in prior work. We find this to be the case across different types of uncertainty and model scales,and with or without instruction tuning. Our results suggest that sampling-based confidence scores help calibrate answers to relatively unambiguous questions, with more dramatic improvements on ambiguous questions.