Provably efficient Model-Based Reinforcement Learning (MBRL) based on optimism or posterior sampling (PSRL) is ensured to attain the global optimality asymptotically by introducing the complexity measure of the model. However, the complexity might grow exponentially for the simplest nonlinear models, where global convergence is impossible within finite iterations. When the model suffers a large generalization error, which is quantitatively measured by the model complexity, the uncertainty can be large. The sampled model that current policy is greedily optimized upon will thus be unsettled, resulting in aggressive policy updates and over-exploration. In this work, we propose Conservative Dual Policy Optimization (CDPO) that involves a Referential Update and a Conservative Update. The policy is first optimized under a reference model, which imitates the mechanism of PSRL while offering more stability. A conservative range of randomness is guaranteed by maximizing the expectation of model value. Without harmful sampling procedures, CDPO can still achieve the same regret as PSRL. More importantly, CDPO enjoys monotonic policy improvement and global optimality simultaneously.

Learning the potentials of interacting particle systems is a fundamental task across various scientific disciplines. A major challenge is that unlabeled data collected at discrete time points lack trajectory information due to limitations in data collection methods or privacy constraints. We address this challenge by introducing a trajectory-free self-test loss function that leverages the weak-form stochastic evolution equation of the empirical distribution. The loss function is quadratic in potentials, supporting parametric and nonparametric regression algorithms for robust estimation that scale to large, high-dimensional systems with big data. Systematic numerical tests show that our method outperforms baseline methods that regress on trajectories recovered via label matching, tolerating large observation time steps. We establish the convergence of parametric estimators as the sample size increases, providing a theoretical foundation for the proposed approach.

Membership Inference Attacks (MIA) aim to infer whether a target data record has been utilized for model training or not. Existing MIAs designed for large language models (LLMs) can be bifurcated into two types: reference-free and reference-based attacks. Although reference-based attacks appear promising performance by calibrating the probability measured on the target model with reference models, this illusion of privacy risk heavily depends on a reference dataset that closely resembles the training set. Both two types of attacks are predicated on the hypothesis that training records consistently maintain a higher probability of being sampled. However, this hypothesis heavily relies on the overfitting of target models, which will be mitigated by multiple regularization methods and the generalization of LLMs. Thus, these reasons lead to high false-positive rates of MIAs in practical scenarios.We propose a Membership Inference Attack based on Self-calibrated Probabilistic Variation (SPV-MIA). Specifically, we introduce a self-prompt approach, which constructs the dataset to fine-tune the reference model by prompting the target LLM itself. In this manner, the adversary can collect a dataset with a similar distribution from public APIs.Furthermore, we introduce probabilistic variation, a more reliable membership signal based on LLM memorization rather than overfitting, from which we rediscover the neighbour attack with theoretical grounding. Comprehensive evaluation conducted on three datasets and four exemplary LLMs shows that SPV-MIA raises the AUC of MIAs from 0.7 to a significantly high level of 0.9.

Preference learning algorithms (e.g., RLHF and DPO) are frequently used to steer LLMs to produce generations that are more preferred by humans, but our understanding of their inner workings is still limited. In this work, we study the conventional wisdom that preference learning trains models to assign higher likelihoods to more preferred outputs than less preferred outputs, measured via .Surprisingly, we find that most state-of-the-art preference-tuned models achieve a ranking accuracy of less than 60% on common preference datasets. We furthermore derive the that a preference-tuned LLM would achieve if it optimized the DPO or RLHF objective perfectly. We demonstrate that existing models exhibit a significant --, a gap between the observed and idealized ranking accuracies. We attribute this discrepancy to the DPO objective, which is empirically and theoretically ill-suited to correct even mild ranking errors in the reference model, and derive a simple and efficient formula for quantifying the difficulty of learning a given preference datapoint.Finally, we demonstrate that ranking accuracy strongly correlates with the empirically popular win rate metric when the model is close to the reference model used in the objective, shedding further light on the differences between on-policy (e.g., RLHF) and off-policy (e.g., DPO) preference learning algorithms.

Membership Inference Attacks (MIA) aim to infer whether a target data record has been utilized for model training or not.

Preference learning algorithms (e.g., RLHF and DPO) are frequently used to steer LLMs to produce generations that are more preferred by humans, but our understanding of their inner workings is still limited.

We then resample a dataset with these domain weights and train a larger, full-sized model.