Hadi Khalaf

Hadi Khalaf, Serena L. Wang, Daniel Halpern et al. · harvard

The standard way to evaluate language models on subjective tasks is through pairwise comparisons: an annotator chooses the "better" of two responses to a prompt. Leaderboards aggregate these comparisons into a single Bradley-Terry (BT) ranking, forcing heterogeneous preferences into a total order and violating basic social-choice desiderata. In contrast, social choice theory provides an alternative approach called maximal lotteries, which aggregates pairwise preferences without imposing any assumptions on their structure. However, we show that maximal lotteries are highly sensitive to preference heterogeneity and can favor models that severely underperform on specific tasks or user subpopulations. We introduce robust lotteries that optimize worst-case performance under plausible shifts in the preference data. On large-scale preference datasets, robust lotteries provide more reliable win rate guarantees across the annotator distribution and recover a stable set of top-performing models. By moving from rankings to pluralistic sets of winners, robust lotteries offer a principled step toward an ecosystem of complementary AI systems that serve the full spectrum of human preferences.

Maarten Buyl, Hadi Khalaf, Claudio Mayrink Verdun et al.

In AI alignment, extensive latitude must be granted to annotators, either human or algorithmic, to judge which model outputs are `better' or `safer.' We refer to this latitude as alignment discretion. Such discretion remains largely unexamined, posing two risks: (i) annotators may use their power of discretion arbitrarily, and (ii) models may fail to mimic this discretion. To study this phenomenon, we draw on legal concepts of discretion that structure how decision-making authority is conferred and exercised, particularly in cases where principles conflict or their application is unclear or irrelevant. Extended to AI alignment, discretion is required when alignment principles and rules are (inevitably) conflicting or indecisive. We present a set of metrics to systematically analyze when and how discretion in AI alignment is exercised, such that both risks (i) and (ii) can be observed. Moreover, we distinguish between human and algorithmic discretion and analyze the discrepancy between them. By measuring both human and algorithmic discretion over safety alignment datasets, we reveal layers of discretion in the alignment process that were previously unaccounted for. Furthermore, we demonstrate how algorithms trained on these datasets develop their own forms of discretion in interpreting and applying these principles, which challenges the purpose of having any principles at all. Our paper presents the first step towards formalizing this core gap in current alignment processes, and we call on the community to further scrutinize and control alignment discretion.

Hadi Khalaf, Claudio Mayrink Verdun, Alex Oesterling et al.

A common paradigm to improve the performance of large language models is optimizing for a reward model. Reward models assign a numerical score to an LLM's output that indicates, for example, how likely it is to align with user preferences or safety goals. However, reward models are never perfect. They inevitably function as proxies for complex desiderata such as correctness, helpfulness, and safety. By overoptimizing for a misspecified reward, we can subvert intended alignment goals and reduce overall performance, a phenomenon commonly referred to as reward hacking. In this work, we characterize reward hacking in inference-time alignment and demonstrate when and how we can mitigate it by hedging on the proxy reward. We study this phenomenon under Best-of-$n$ (BoN) and Soft Best-of-$n$ (SBoN), and we introduce Best-of-Poisson (BoP) that provides an efficient, near-exact approximation of the optimal reward-KL divergence policy at inference time. We show that the characteristic pattern of hacking as observed in practice (where the true reward first increases before declining) is an inevitable property of a broad class of inference-time mechanisms, including BoN and BoP. To counter this effect, we introduce HedgeTune, an efficient algorithm to find the optimal inference-time parameter. We demonstrate that hedging mitigates reward hacking and achieves superior reward-distortion tradeoffs on math, reasoning, and human-preference setups.