Marwa Abdulhai

Greg Serapio-García, Mustafa Safdari, Clément Crepy et al. · cambridge

The advent of large language models (LLMs) has revolutionized natural language processing, enabling the generation of coherent and contextually relevant human-like text. As LLMs increasingly powerconversational agents used by the general public world-wide, the synthetic personality traits embedded in these models, by virtue of training on large amounts of human data, is becoming increasingly important. Since personality is a key factor determining the effectiveness of communication, we present a novel and comprehensive psychometrically valid and reliable methodology for administering and validating personality tests on widely-used LLMs, as well as for shaping personality in the generated text of such LLMs. Applying this method to 18 LLMs, we found: 1) personality measurements in the outputs of some LLMs under specific prompting configurations are reliable and valid; 2) evidence of reliability and validity of synthetic LLM personality is stronger for larger and instruction fine-tuned models; and 3) personality in LLM outputs can be shaped along desired dimensions to mimic specific human personality profiles. We discuss the application and ethical implications of the measurement and shaping method, in particular regarding responsible AI.

Marwa Abdulhai, Isadora White, Charlie Snell et al.

Large language models (LLMs) provide excellent text-generation capabilities, but standard prompting and generation methods generally do not lead to intentional or goal-directed agents and might necessitate considerable prompt tuning. This becomes particularly apparent in multi-turn conversations: even the best current LLMs rarely ask clarifying questions, engage in explicit information gathering, or take actions now that lead to better decisions after multiple turns. Reinforcement learning has the potential to leverage the powerful modeling capabilities of LLMs, as well as their internal representation of textual interactions, to create capable goal-directed language agents. This can enable intentional and temporally extended interactions, such as with humans, through coordinated persuasion and carefully crafted questions, or in goal-directed play through text games to bring about desired final outcomes. However, enabling this requires the community to develop stable and reliable reinforcement learning algorithms that can effectively train LLMs. Developing such algorithms requires tasks that can gauge progress on algorithm design, provide accessible and reproducible evaluations for multi-turn interactions, and cover a range of task properties and challenges in improving reinforcement learning algorithms. Our paper introduces the LMRL-Gym benchmark for evaluating multi-turn RL for LLMs, together with an open-source research framework containing a basic toolkit for getting started on multi-turn RL with offline value-based and policy-based RL methods. Our benchmark consists of 8 different language tasks, which require multiple rounds of language interaction and cover a range of tasks in open-ended dialogue and text games.

Suhong Moon, Marwa Abdulhai, Minwoo Kang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are trained from vast repositories of text authored by millions of distinct authors, reflecting an enormous diversity of human traits. While these models bear the potential to be used as approximations of human subjects in behavioral studies, prior efforts have been limited in steering model responses to match individual human users. In this work, we introduce "Anthology", a method for conditioning LLMs to particular virtual personas by harnessing open-ended life narratives, which we refer to as "backstories." We show that our methodology enhances the consistency and reliability of experimental outcomes while ensuring better representation of diverse sub-populations. Across three nationally representative human surveys conducted as part of Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel (ATP), we demonstrate that Anthology achieves up to 18% improvement in matching the response distributions of human respondents and 27% improvement in consistency metrics. Our code and generated backstories are available at https://github.com/CannyLab/anthology.

Marwa Abdulhai, Natasha Jaques, Sergey Levine

This paper addresses the problem of inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) -- inferring the reward function of an agent from observing its behavior. IRL can provide a generalizable and compact representation for apprenticeship learning, and enable accurately inferring the preferences of a human in order to assist them. %and provide for more accurate prediction. However, effective IRL is challenging, because many reward functions can be compatible with an observed behavior. We focus on how prior reinforcement learning (RL) experience can be leveraged to make learning these preferences faster and more efficient. We propose the IRL algorithm BASIS (Behavior Acquisition through Successor-feature Intention inference from Samples), which leverages multi-task RL pre-training and successor features to allow an agent to build a strong basis for intentions that spans the space of possible goals in a given domain. When exposed to just a few expert demonstrations optimizing a novel goal, the agent uses its basis to quickly and effectively infer the reward function. Our experiments reveal that our method is highly effective at inferring and optimizing demonstrated reward functions, accurately inferring reward functions from less than 100 trajectories.

Marwa Abdulhai, Isadora White, Yanming Wan et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are used by over a billion people globally, most often to assist with writing. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs not only alter the voice and tone of human writing, but also consistently alter the intended meaning. First, we conduct a human user study to understand how people actually interact with LLMs when using them for writing. Our findings reveal that extensive LLM use led to a nearly 70% increase in essays that remained neutral in answering the topic question. Significantly more heavy LLM users reported that the writing was less creative and not in their voice. Next, using a dataset of human-written essays that was collected in 2021 before the widespread release of LLMs, we study how asking an LLM to revise the essay based on the human-written feedback in the dataset induces large changes in the resulting content and meaning. We find that even when LLMs are prompted with expert feedback and asked to only make grammar edits, they still change the text in a way that significantly alters its semantic meaning. We then examine LLM-generated text in the wild, specifically focusing on the 21% of AI-generated scientific peer reviews at a recent top AI conference. We find that LLM-generated reviews place significantly less weight on clarity and significance of the research, and assign scores that, on average, are a full point higher.These findings highlight a misalignment between the perceived benefit of AI use and an implicit, consistent effect on the semantics of human writing, motivating future work on how widespread AI writing will affect our cultural and scientific institutions.

Chandler Smith, Marwa Abdulhai, Manfred Diaz et al.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents have demonstrated impressive capabilities for social interaction and are increasingly being deployed in situations where they might engage with both human and artificial agents. These interactions represent a critical frontier for LLM-based agents, yet existing evaluation methods fail to measure how well these capabilities generalize to novel social situations. In this paper, we introduce a method for evaluating the ability of LLM-based agents to cooperate in zero-shot, mixed-motive environments using Concordia, a natural language multi-agent simulation environment. Our method measures general cooperative intelligence by testing an agent's ability to identify and exploit opportunities for mutual gain across diverse partners and contexts. We present empirical results from the NeurIPS 2024 Concordia Contest, where agents were evaluated on their ability to achieve mutual gains across a suite of diverse scenarios ranging from negotiation to collective action problems. Our findings reveal significant gaps between current agent capabilities and the robust generalization required for reliable cooperation, particularly in scenarios demanding persuasion and norm enforcement.

Marwa Abdulhai, Gregory Serapio-Garcia, Clément Crepy et al.

Moral foundations theory (MFT) is a psychological assessment tool that decomposes human moral reasoning into five factors, including care/harm, liberty/oppression, and sanctity/degradation (Graham et al., 2009). People vary in the weight they place on these dimensions when making moral decisions, in part due to their cultural upbringing and political ideology. As large language models (LLMs) are trained on datasets collected from the internet, they may reflect the biases that are present in such corpora. This paper uses MFT as a lens to analyze whether popular LLMs have acquired a bias towards a particular set of moral values. We analyze known LLMs and find they exhibit particular moral foundations, and show how these relate to human moral foundations and political affiliations. We also measure the consistency of these biases, or whether they vary strongly depending on the context of how the model is prompted. Finally, we show that we can adversarially select prompts that encourage the moral to exhibit a particular set of moral foundations, and that this can affect the model's behavior on downstream tasks. These findings help illustrate the potential risks and unintended consequences of LLMs assuming a particular moral stance.

Marwa Abdulhai, Ryan Cheng, Donovan Clay et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human users in interactive settings such as therapy, education, and social role-play. While these simulations enable scalable training and evaluation of AI agents, off-the-shelf LLMs often drift from their assigned personas, contradict earlier statements, or abandon role-appropriate behavior. We introduce a unified framework for evaluating and improving persona consistency in LLM-generated dialogue. We define three automatic metrics: prompt-to-line consistency, line-to-line consistency, and Q&A consistency, that capture different types of persona drift and validate each against human annotations. Using these metrics as reward signals, we apply multi-turn reinforcement learning to fine-tune LLMs for three user roles: a patient, a student, and a social chat partner. Our method reduces inconsistency by over 55%, resulting in more coherent and faithful simulated users.

Shuhaib Mehri, Philippe Laban, Sumuk Shashidhar et al.

As user simulators are increasingly used for interactive training and evaluation of AI assistants, it is essential that they represent the diverse behaviors of real users. While existing works train user simulators to generate human-like responses, whether they capture the broad and heterogeneous distribution of real user behaviors remains an open question. In this work, we introduce a method to measure the distributional gap between real and simulated user behaviors, validated through a human study and ablations. Given a dataset of real and simulated conversations, our method extracts representations of user behavior from each conversation, quantizes them into discrete distributions via clustering, then computes divergence metrics. We provide the first systematic evaluation of 24 LLM-based user simulators on coding and writing tasks, and reveal a large distributional gap from real users that varies across model families, scales, and behavioral facets. Pairwise comparisons show that most simulators behave similarly, while a few stand apart. Combining behaviorally complementary simulators brings the resulting distribution closer to real users compared to either simulator on its own. Finally, a TF-IDF analysis of the clusters surfaces interpretable patterns of behaviors that simulators capture, miss, and hallucinate.

Yanming Wan, Jiaxing Wu, Marwa Abdulhai et al.

Effective conversational agents like large language models (LLMs) must personalize their interactions to adapt to user preferences, personalities, and attributes across diverse domains like education and healthcare. Current methods like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), often prioritize helpfulness and safety but fall short in fostering truly empathetic, adaptive, and personalized dialogues. Existing personalization approaches typically rely on extensive user history, limiting their effectiveness for new or context-limited users. To address these limitations, we propose leveraging a user model to incorporate a curiosity-based intrinsic reward into multi-turn RLHF. This novel reward mechanism encourages the LLM agent to actively infer user traits by optimizing conversations to improve its user model's accuracy. Consequently, the agent delivers more personalized interactions by learning more about the user. We demonstrate our method's effectiveness in two distinct domains: significantly improving personalization performance in a conversational recommendation task, and personalizing conversations for different learning styles in an educational setting. We show improved generalization capabilities compared to traditional multi-turn RLHF, all while maintaining conversation quality. Our method offers a promising solution for creating more personalized, adaptive, and engaging conversational agents.

Marwa Abdulhai, Ryan Cheng, Aryansh Shrivastava et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare. However, their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns. The unpredictable nature of LLM behavior, combined with insufficient safeguards against hallucination, misinformation, and user manipulation, makes their misuse a serious, real-world risk. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception. We evaluate deception across four distinct dialogue scenarios, using five established deception detection metrics and our proposed metric. Our findings reveal this novel deception measure correlates more closely with human judgments than any existing metrics we test. Additionally, our benchmarking of eight state-of-the-art models indicates that LLMs naturally exhibit deceptive behavior in approximately 26% of dialogue turns, even when prompted with seemingly benign objectives. When prompted to deceive, LLMs are capable of increasing deceptiveness by as much as 31% relative to baselines. Unexpectedly, models trained with RLHF, the predominant approach for ensuring the safety of widely-deployed LLMs, still exhibit deception at a rate of 43% on average. Given that deception in dialogue is a behavior that develops over an interaction history, its effective evaluation and mitigation necessitates moving beyond single-utterance analyses. We introduce a multi-turn reinforcement learning methodology to fine-tune LLMs to reduce deceptive behaviors, leading to a 77.6% reduction compared to other instruction-tuned models.

Marwa Abdulhai, Dong-Ki Kim, Matthew Riemer et al.

Hierarchical reinforcement learning has focused on discovering temporally extended actions, such as options, that can provide benefits in problems requiring extensive exploration. One promising approach that learns these options end-to-end is the option-critic (OC) framework. We examine and show in this paper that OC does not decompose a problem into simpler sub-problems, but instead increases the size of the search over policy space with each option considering the entire state space during learning. This issue can result in practical limitations of this method, including sample inefficient learning. To address this problem, we introduce Context-Specific Representation Abstraction for Deep Option Learning (CRADOL), a new framework that considers both temporal abstraction and context-specific representation abstraction to effectively reduce the size of the search over policy space. Specifically, our method learns a factored belief state representation that enables each option to learn a policy over only a subsection of the state space. We test our method against hierarchical, non-hierarchical, and modular recurrent neural network baselines, demonstrating significant sample efficiency improvements in challenging partially observable environments.

Dong-Ki Kim, Miao Liu, Matthew Riemer et al.

A fundamental challenge in multiagent reinforcement learning is to learn beneficial behaviors in a shared environment with other simultaneously learning agents. In particular, each agent perceives the environment as effectively non-stationary due to the changing policies of other agents. Moreover, each agent is itself constantly learning, leading to natural non-stationarity in the distribution of experiences encountered. In this paper, we propose a novel meta-multiagent policy gradient theorem that directly accounts for the non-stationary policy dynamics inherent to multiagent learning settings. This is achieved by modeling our gradient updates to consider both an agent's own non-stationary policy dynamics and the non-stationary policy dynamics of other agents in the environment. We show that our theoretically grounded approach provides a general solution to the multiagent learning problem, which inherently comprises all key aspects of previous state of the art approaches on this topic. We test our method on a diverse suite of multiagent benchmarks and demonstrate a more efficient ability to adapt to new agents as they learn than baseline methods across the full spectrum of mixed incentive, competitive, and cooperative domains.