Violet Xiang

Daniel Fein, Max Lamparth, Violet Xiang et al. · stanford

Reward Models (RMs) are crucial for online alignment of language models (LMs) with human preferences. However, RM-based preference-tuning is vulnerable to reward hacking, whereby LM policies learn undesirable behaviors from flawed RMs. By systematically measuring biases in five high-quality RMs, including the state-of-the-art, we find that issues persist despite prior work with respect to length, sycophancy, and overconfidence. We also discover new issues related to bias toward model-specific styles and answer-order. We categorize RM failures by complexity and propose a simple post-hoc intervention to mitigate low-complexity biases that arise from spurious correlations. Our proposed mechanistic reward shaping reduces targeted biases without degrading reward quality and while using minimal labeled data. The method is extensible to new biases, model-internal, and generalizes out-of-distribution.

Logan Cross, Violet Xiang, Agam Bhatia et al.

Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) methods struggle with the non-stationarity of multi-agent systems and fail to adaptively learn online when tested with novel agents. Here, we leverage large language models (LLMs) to create an autonomous agent that can handle these challenges. Our agent, Hypothetical Minds, consists of a cognitively-inspired architecture, featuring modular components for perception, memory, and hierarchical planning over two levels of abstraction. We introduce the Theory of Mind module that scaffolds the high-level planning process by generating hypotheses about other agents' strategies in natural language. It then evaluates and iteratively refines these hypotheses by reinforcing hypotheses that make correct predictions about the other agents' behavior. Hypothetical Minds significantly improves performance over previous LLM-agent and RL baselines on a range of competitive, mixed motive, and collaborative domains in the Melting Pot benchmark, including both dyadic and population-based environments. Additionally, comparisons against LLM-agent baselines and ablations reveal the importance of hypothesis evaluation and refinement for succeeding on complex scenarios.

Alon Albalak, Duy Phung, Nathan Lile et al.

Increasing interest in reasoning models has led math to become a prominent testing ground for algorithmic and methodological improvements. However, existing open math datasets either contain a small collection of high-quality, human-written problems or a large corpus of machine-generated problems of uncertain quality, forcing researchers to choose between quality and quantity. In this work, we present Big-Math, a dataset of over 250,000 high-quality math questions with verifiable answers, purposefully made for reinforcement learning (RL). To create Big-Math, we rigorously filter, clean, and curate openly available datasets, extracting questions that satisfy our three desiderata: (1) problems with uniquely verifiable solutions, (2) problems that are open-ended, (3) and problems with a closed-form solution. To ensure the quality of Big-Math, we manually verify each step in our filtering process. Based on the findings from our filtering process, we introduce 47,000 new questions with verified answers, Big-Math-Reformulated: closed-ended questions (i.e. multiple choice questions) that have been reformulated as open-ended questions through a systematic reformulation algorithm. Compared to the most commonly used existing open-source datasets for math reasoning, GSM8k and MATH, Big-Math is an order of magnitude larger, while our rigorous filtering ensures that we maintain the questions most suitable for RL. We also provide a rigorous analysis of the dataset, finding that Big-Math contains a high degree of diversity across problem domains, and incorporates a wide range of problem difficulties, enabling a wide range of downstream uses for models of varying capabilities and training requirements. By bridging the gap between data quality and quantity, Big-Math establish a robust foundation for advancing reasoning in LLMs.

Daniel Fein, Sebastian Russo, Violet Xiang et al.

Evaluating creative writing generated by large language models (LLMs) remains challenging because open-ended narratives lack ground truths. Without performant automated evaluation methods, off-the-shelf (OTS) language models are employed as zero-shot judges, yet their reliability is unclear in this context. In pursuit of robust evaluation for creative writing, we introduce LitBench, the first standardized benchmark and paired dataset for creative writing verification, comprising a held-out test set of 2,480 debiased, human-labeled story comparisons drawn from Reddit and a 43,827-pair training corpus of human preference labels. Using LitBench, we (i) benchmark zero-shot LLM judges, (ii) train Bradley Terry and generative reward models, and (iii) conduct an online human study to validate reward model rankings on newly LLM-generated stories. Our benchmark identifies Claude-3.7-Sonnet as the strongest off-the-shelf judge, reaching 73% agreement with human preferences; among trained reward models, Bradley-Terry and Generative reward models both attain an accuracy of 78%, outperforming all off-the-shelf judges. An online human study further confirms that our trained reward models consistently align with human preferences in novel LLM-generated stories. We release LitBench and reward models at https://huggingface.co/collections/SAA-Lab/litbench-68267b5da3aafe58f9e43461, providing a vetted resource for reliable, automated evaluation and optimization of creative writing systems.

Tianyu Hua, Harper Hua, Violet Xiang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in transforming machine learning research, yet their capability to faithfully implement novel ideas from recent research papers-ideas unseen during pretraining-remains unclear. We introduce ResearchCodeBench, a benchmark of 212 coding challenges that evaluates LLMs' ability to translate cutting-edge ML contributions from top 2024-2025 research papers into executable code. We assessed 30+ proprietary and open-source LLMs, finding that even the best models correctly implement less than 40% of the code. We find Gemini-2.5-Pro-Preview to perform best at 37.3% success rate, with O3 (High) and O4-mini (High) following behind at 32.3% and 30.8% respectively. We present empirical findings on performance comparison, contamination, and error patterns. By providing a rigorous and community-driven evaluation platform, ResearchCodeBench enables continuous understanding and advancement of LLM-driven innovation in research code generation.

Violet Xiang, Charlie Snell, Kanishk Gandhi et al. · stanford

We propose a novel framework, Meta Chain-of-Thought (Meta-CoT), which extends traditional Chain-of-Thought (CoT) by explicitly modeling the underlying reasoning required to arrive at a particular CoT. We present empirical evidence from state-of-the-art models exhibiting behaviors consistent with in-context search, and explore methods for producing Meta-CoT via process supervision, synthetic data generation, and search algorithms. Finally, we outline a concrete pipeline for training a model to produce Meta-CoTs, incorporating instruction tuning with linearized search traces and reinforcement learning post-training. Finally, we discuss open research questions, including scaling laws, verifier roles, and the potential for discovering novel reasoning algorithms. This work provides a theoretical and practical roadmap to enable Meta-CoT in LLMs, paving the way for more powerful and human-like reasoning in artificial intelligence.

Violet Xiang, Chase Blagden, Rafael Rafailov et al.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) achieve higher performance on challenging reasoning tasks by generating more tokens at inference time, but this verbosity often wastes computation on easy problems. Existing solutions, including supervised finetuning on shorter traces, user-controlled budgets, or RL with uniform penalties, either require data curation, manual configuration, or treat all problems alike regardless of difficulty. We introduce Adaptive Length Penalty (ALP), a reinforcement learning objective tailoring generation length to per-prompt solve rate. During training, ALP monitors each prompt's online solve rate through multiple rollouts and adds a differentiable penalty whose magnitude scales inversely with that rate, so confident (easy) prompts incur a high cost for extra tokens while hard prompts remain unhindered. Posttraining DeepScaleR-1.5B with ALP cuts average token usage by 50\% without significantly dropping performance. Relative to fixed-budget and uniform penalty baselines, ALP redistributes its reduced budget more intelligently by cutting compute on easy prompts and reallocating saved tokens to difficult ones, delivering higher accuracy on the hardest problems with higher cost.

Bria Long, Robert Z. Sparks, Violet Xiang et al.

Human children far exceed modern machine learning algorithms in their sample efficiency, achieving high performance in key domains with much less data than current models. This ''data gap'' is a key challenge both for building intelligent artificial systems and for understanding human development. Egocentric video capturing children's experience--their ''training data''--is a key ingredient for comparison of humans and models and for the development of algorithmic innovations to bridge this gap. Yet there are few such datasets available, and extant data are low-resolution, have limited metadata, and importantly, represent only a small set of children's experiences. Here, we provide the first release of a large developmental egocentric video dataset--the BabyView dataset--recorded using a high-resolution camera with a large vertical field-of-view and gyroscope/accelerometer data. This 868 hour dataset includes egocentric videos from children spanning 6 months to 3 years of age in longitudinal, at-home contexts. We provide gold-standard annotations for the evaluation of speech transcription, speaker diarization, and human pose estimation, and evaluate models in each of these domains. We train self-supervised language and vision models and evaluate their transfer to out-of-distribution tasks, including syntactic structure learning, object recognition, depth estimation, and image segmentation. Although performance in each domain scales with dataset size, overall performance is relatively lower than when models are trained on curated datasets, especially in the visual domain. Our dataset stands as an open challenge for robust, human-like AI systems: how can such systems achieve human-levels of success on the same scale and distribution of training data as humans?