We consider the problem of Imitation Learning (IL) by actively querying noisy expert for feedback. While imitation learning has been empirically successful, much of prior work assumes access to noiseless expert feedback which is not practical in many applications. In fact, when one only has access to noisy expert feedback, algorithms that rely on purely offline data (non-interactive IL) can be shown to need a prohibitively large number of samples to be successful. In contrast, in this work, we provide an interactive algorithm for IL that uses selective sampling to actively query the noisy expert for feedback. Our contributions are twofold: First, we provide a new selective sampling algorithm that works with general function classes and multiple actions, and obtains the best-known bounds for the regret and the number of queries.

Developing decision-support systems that complement human performance in classification tasks remains an open challenge. A popular approach, Learning to Defer (LtD), allows a Machine Learning (ML) model to pass difficult cases to a human expert. However, LtD treats humans and ML models as mutually exclusive decision-makers, restricting the expert contribution to mere predictions. To address this limitation, we propose Learning to Ask (LtA), a new framework that handles both when and how to incorporate expert input in an ML model. LtA is based on a two-part architecture: a standard ML model and an enriched model trained with additional expert human feedback, with a formally optimal strategy for selecting when to query the enriched model. We provide two practical implementations of LtA: a sequential approach, which trains the models in stages, and a joint approach, which optimises them simultaneously. For the latter, we design surrogate losses with realisable-consistency guarantees. Our experiments with synthetic and real expert data demonstrate that LtA provides a more flexible and powerful foundation for effective human-AI collaboration.

Extracting structured information from unstructured text is crucial for modeling real-world processes, but traditional schema mining relies on semi-structured data, limiting scalability. This paper introduces schema-miner, a novel tool that combines large language models with human feedback to automate and refine schema extraction. Through an iterative workflow, it organizes properties from text, incorporates expert input, and integrates domain-specific ontologies for semantic depth. Applied to materials science--specifically atomic layer deposition-- schema-miner demonstrates that expert-guided LLMs generate semantically rich schemas suitable for diverse real-world applications.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been previously explored for mental healthcare training and therapy client simulation, but they still fall short in authentically capturing diverse client traits and psychological conditions. We introduce \textbf{Eeyore}, an 8B model optimized for realistic depression simulation through a structured alignment framework, incorporating expert input at every stage. First, we systematically curate real-world depression-related conversations, extracting depressive traits to guide data filtering and psychological profile construction, and use this dataset to instruction-tune Eeyore for profile adherence. Next, to further enhance realism, Eeyore undergoes iterative preference optimization -- first leveraging model-generated preferences and then calibrating with a small set of expert-annotated preferences. Throughout the entire pipeline, we actively collaborate with domain experts, developing interactive interfaces to validate trait extraction and iteratively refine structured psychological profiles for clinically meaningful role-play customization. Despite its smaller model size, the Eeyore depression simulation outperforms GPT-4o with SOTA prompting strategies, both in linguistic authenticity and profile adherence.

We consider the problem of Imitation Learning (IL) by actively querying noisy expert for feedback. While imitation learning has been empirically successful, much of prior work assumes access to noiseless expert feedback which is not practical in many applications. In fact, when one only has access to noisy expert feedback, algorithms that rely on purely offline data (non-interactive IL) can be shown to need a prohibitively large number of samples to be successful. In contrast, in this work, we provide an interactive algorithm for IL that uses selective sampling to actively query the noisy expert for feedback. Our contributions are twofold: First, we provide a new selective sampling algorithm that works with general function classes and multiple actions, and obtains the best-known bounds for the regret and the number of queries.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate incorrect or outdated information, especially in low-resource settings or when dealing with private data. To address this, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) uses external knowledge bases (KBs), but these can also suffer from inaccuracies. We introduce STACKFEED, a novel Structured Textual Actor-Critic Knowledge base editing with FEEDback approach that iteratively refines the KB based on expert feedback using a multi-actor, centralized critic reinforcement learning framework. Each document is assigned to an actor, modeled as a ReACT agent, which performs structured edits based on document-specific targeted instructions from a centralized critic. Experimental results show that STACKFEED significantly improves KB quality and RAG system performance, enhancing accuracy by up to 8% over baselines.

Bayesian optimization (BO) is an integral part of automated scientific discovery -- the so-called self-driving lab -- where human inputs are ideally minimal or at least non-blocking. However, scientists often have strong intuition, and thus human feedback is still useful. Nevertheless, prior works in enhancing BO with expert feedback, such as by incorporating it in an offline or online but blocking (arrives at each BO iteration) manner, are incompatible with the spirit of self-driving labs. In this work, we study whether a small amount of randomly arriving expert feedback that is being incorporated in a non-blocking manner can improve a BO campaign. To this end, we run an additional, independent computing thread on top of the BO loop to handle the feedback-gathering process. The gathered feedback is used to learn a Bayesian preference model that can readily be incorporated into the BO thread, to steer its exploration-exploitation process. Experiments on toy and chemistry datasets suggest that even just a few intermittent, asynchronous expert feedback can be useful for improving or constraining BO. This can especially be useful for its implication in improving self-driving labs, e.g. making them more data-efficient and less costly.

Thematic analysis and other variants of inductive coding are widely used qualitative analytic methods within empirical legal studies (ELS). We propose a novel framework facilitating effective collaboration of a legal expert with a large language model (LLM) for generating initial codes (phase 2 of thematic analysis), searching for themes (phase 3), and classifying the data in terms of the themes (to kick-start phase 4). We employed the framework for an analysis of a dataset (n = 785) of facts descriptions from criminal court opinions regarding thefts. The goal of the analysis was to discover classes of typical thefts. Our results show that the LLM, namely OpenAI's GPT-4, generated reasonable initial codes, and it was capable of improving the quality of the codes based on expert feedback. They also suggest that the model performed well in zero-shot classification of facts descriptions in terms of the themes. Finally, the themes autonomously discovered by the LLM appear to map fairly well to the themes arrived at by legal experts. These findings can be leveraged by legal researchers to guide their decisions in integrating LLMs into their thematic analyses, as well as other inductive coding projects.

To solve complex tasks, large language models (LLMs) often require multiple rounds of interactions with the user, sometimes assisted by external tools. However, current evaluation protocols often emphasize benchmark performance with single-turn exchanges, neglecting the nuanced interactions among the user, LLMs, and external tools, while also underestimating the importance of natural language feedback from users. These oversights contribute to discrepancies between research benchmark evaluations and real-world use cases. We introduce MINT, a benchmark that evaluates LLMs' ability to solve tasks with multi-turn interactions by (1) using tools and (2) leveraging natural language feedback. To ensure reproducibility, we provide an evaluation framework where LLMs can access tools by executing Python code and receive users' natural language feedback simulated by GPT-4. We repurpose a diverse set of established evaluation datasets focusing on reasoning, coding, and decision-making and carefully curate them into a compact subset for efficient evaluation. Our analysis of 20 open- and closed-source LLMs offers intriguing findings. (a) LLMs generally benefit from tools and language feedback, with performance gains (absolute, same below) of 1-8% for each turn of tool use and 2-17% with natural language feedback. (b) Better single-turn performance does not guarantee better multi-turn performance. (c) Surprisingly, on the LLMs evaluated, supervised instruction-finetuning (SIFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) generally hurt multi-turn capabilities. We expect MINT can help measure progress and incentivize research in improving LLMs' capabilities in multi-turn interactions, especially for open-source communities where multi-turn human evaluation can be less accessible compared to commercial LLMs with a larger user base.

While state-of-the-art language models excel at the style transfer task, current work does not address explainability of style transfer systems. Explanations could be generated using large language models such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, but the use of such complex systems is inefficient when smaller, widely distributed, and transparent alternatives are available. We propose a framework to augment and improve a formality style transfer dataset with explanations via model distillation from ChatGPT. To further refine the generated explanations, we propose a novel way to incorporate scarce expert human feedback using in-context learning (ICLEF: In-Context Learning from Expert Feedback) by prompting ChatGPT to act as a critic to its own outputs. We use the resulting dataset of 9,960 explainable formality style transfer instances (e-GYAFC) to show that current openly distributed instruction-tuned models (and, in some settings, ChatGPT) perform poorly on the task, and that fine-tuning on our high-quality dataset leads to significant improvements as shown by automatic evaluation. In human evaluation, we show that models much smaller than ChatGPT fine-tuned on our data align better with expert preferences. Finally, we discuss two potential applications of models fine-tuned on the explainable style transfer task: interpretable authorship verification and interpretable adversarial attacks on AI-generated text detectors.