Checklists are simple decision aids that are often used to promote safety and reliability in clinical applications. In this paper, we present a method to learn checklists for clinical decision support. We represent predictive checklists as discrete linear classifiers with binary features and unit weights.

Checklists are simple decision aids that are often used to promote safety and reliability in clinical applications. In this paper, we present a method to learn checklists for clinical decision support. We represent predictive checklists as discrete linear classifiers with binary features and unit weights. We then learn globally optimal predictive checklists from data by solving an integer programming problem. Our method allows users to customize checklists to obey complex constraints, including constraints to enforce group fairness and to binarize real-valued features at training time. In addition, it pairs models with an optimality gap that can inform model development and determine the feasibility of learning sufficiently accurate checklists on a given dataset. We pair our method with specialized techniques that speed up its ability to train a predictive checklist that performs well and has a small optimality gap. We benchmark the performance of our method on seven clinical classification problems, and demonstrate its practical benefits by training a short-form checklist for PTSD screening. Our results show that our method can fit simple predictive checklists that perform well and that can easily be customized to obey a rich class of custom constraints.

Language Models (LMs) struggle with complex, interdependent instructions, particularly in high-stakes domains like finance where precision is critical. We introduce FIFE, a novel, high-difficulty benchmark designed to assess LM instruction-following capabilities for financial analysis tasks. FIFE comprises 88 human-authored prompts and employs a verification system with chainable, verifiable constraints for fine-grained reward signals. We evaluate 53 models (proprietary, open-weight, open-source) in a zero-shot setting. Our key findings reveal a clear performance hierarchy: the top open-weight model (76.1 strict / 79.5 loose) surpasses the leading proprietary system (65.9 strict / 70.5 loose), while the best open-source models lag significantly (45.5 strict / 48.9 loose). However, even top-performing models struggle with FIFE's complex requirements, failing to achieve perfect compliance. We release our dataset and code as an open-source resource to promote research in Reinforcement Learning for the financial domain.

Language models must be adapted to understand and follow user instructions. Reinforcement learning is widely used to facilitate this -- typically using fixed criteria such as "helpfulness" and "harmfulness". In our work, we instead propose using flexible, instruction-specific criteria as a means of broadening the impact that reinforcement learning can have in eliciting instruction following. We propose "Reinforcement Learning from Checklist Feedback" (RLCF). From instructions, we extract checklists and evaluate how well responses satisfy each item - using both AI judges and specialized verifier programs - then combine these scores to compute rewards for RL. We compare RLCF with other alignment methods applied to a strong instruction following model (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct) on five widely-studied benchmarks -- RLCF is the only method to improve performance on every benchmark, including a 4-point boost in hard satisfaction rate on FollowBench, a 6-point increase on InFoBench, and a 3-point rise in win rate on Arena-Hard. These results establish checklist feedback as a key tool for improving language models' support of queries that express a multitude of needs.

Synthetic personae experiments have become a prominent method in Large Language Model alignment research, yet the representativeness and ecological validity of these personae vary considerably between studies. Through a review of 63 peer-reviewed studies published between 2023 and 2025 in leading NLP and AI venues, we reveal a critical gap: task and population of interest are often underspecified in persona-based experiments, despite personalization being fundamentally dependent on these criteria. Our analysis shows substantial differences in user representation, with most studies focusing on limited sociodemographic attributes and only 35% discussing the representativeness of their LLM personae. Based on our findings, we introduce a persona transparency checklist that emphasizes representative sampling, explicit grounding in empirical data, and enhanced ecological validity. Our work provides both a comprehensive assessment of current practices and practical guidelines to improve the rigor and ecological validity of persona-based evaluations in language model alignment research.

Large language models have recently demonstrated their exceptional capabilities in supporting and automating various tasks. Among the tasks worth exploring for testing large language model capabilities, we considered data preparation, a critical yet often labor-intensive step in data-driven processes. This paper investigates whether large language models can effectively support users in selecting and automating data preparation tasks. To this aim, we considered both general-purpose and fine-tuned tabular large language models. We prompted these models with poor-quality datasets and measured their ability to perform tasks such as data profiling and cleaning. We also compare the support provided by large language models with that offered by traditional data preparation tools. To evaluate the capabilities of large language models, we developed a custom-designed quality model that has been validated through a user study to gain insights into practitioners' expectations.

Web navigation is a unique domain that can automate many repetitive real-life tasks and is challenging as it requires long-horizon sequential decision making beyond typical multimodal large language model (MLLM) tasks. Yet, specialized reward models for web navigation that can be utilized during both training and test-time have been absent until now. Despite the importance of speed and cost-effectiveness, prior works have utilized MLLMs as reward models, which poses significant constraints for real-world deployment. To address this, in this work, we propose the first process reward model (PRM) called Web-Shepherd which could assess web navigation trajectories in a step-level. To achieve this, we first construct the WebPRM Collection, a large-scale dataset with 40K step-level preference pairs and annotated checklists spanning diverse domains and difficulty levels. Next, we also introduce the WebRewardBench, the first meta-evaluation benchmark for evaluating PRMs. In our experiments, we observe that our Web-Shepherd achieves about 30 points better accuracy compared to using GPT-4o on WebRewardBench. Furthermore, when testing on WebArena-lite by using GPT-4o-mini as the policy and Web-Shepherd as the verifier, we achieve 10.9 points better performance, in 10 less cost compared to using GPT-4o-mini as the verifier. Our model, dataset, and code are publicly available at LINK.

Embodied AI agents exploit reward signal flaws through reward hacking, achieving high proxy scores while failing true objectives. We introduce Mechanistically Interpretable Task Decomposition (MITD), a hierarchical transformer architecture with Planner, Coordinator, and Executor modules that detects and mitigates reward hacking. MITD decomposes tasks into interpretable subtasks while generating diagnostic visualizations including Attention Waterfall Diagrams and Neural Pathway Flow Charts. Experiments on 1,000 HH-RLHF samples reveal that decomposition depths of 12 to 25 steps reduce reward hacking frequency by 34 percent across four failure modes. We present new paradigms showing that mechanistically grounded decomposition offers a more effective way to detect reward hacking than post-hoc behavioral monitoring.