K. Siva Krishna

Jie Ren, Jiaming Luo, Yao Zhao et al. · mit

Machine learning algorithms typically assume independent and identically distributed samples in training and at test time. Much work has shown that high-performing ML classifiers can degrade significantly and provide overly-confident, wrong classification predictions, particularly for out-of-distribution (OOD) inputs. Conditional language models (CLMs) are predominantly trained to classify the next token in an output sequence, and may suffer even worse degradation on OOD inputs as the prediction is done auto-regressively over many steps. Furthermore, the space of potential low-quality outputs is larger as arbitrary text can be generated and it is important to know when to trust the generated output. We present a highly accurate and lightweight OOD detection method for CLMs, and demonstrate its effectiveness on abstractive summarization and translation. We also show how our method can be used under the common and realistic setting of distribution shift for selective generation (analogous to selective prediction for classification) of high-quality outputs, while automatically abstaining from low-quality ones, enabling safer deployment of generative language models.

Kundan Krishna, Saurabh Garg, Jeffrey P. Bigham et al.

For most natural language processing tasks, the dominant practice is to finetune large pretrained transformer models (e.g., BERT) using smaller downstream datasets. Despite the success of this approach, it remains unclear to what extent these gains are attributable to the massive background corpora employed for pretraining versus to the pretraining objectives themselves. This paper introduces a large-scale study of self-pretraining, where the same (downstream) training data is used for both pretraining and finetuning. In experiments addressing both ELECTRA and RoBERTa models and 10 distinct downstream classification datasets, we observe that self-pretraining rivals standard pretraining on the BookWiki corpus (despite using around $10\times$--$500\times$ less data), outperforming the latter on $7$ and $5$ datasets, respectively. Surprisingly, these task-specific pretrained models often perform well on other tasks, including the GLUE benchmark. Besides classification tasks, self-pretraining also provides benefits on structured output prediction tasks such as span based question answering and commonsense inference, often providing more than $50\%$ of the performance boosts provided by pretraining on the BookWiki corpus. Our results hint that in many scenarios, performance gains attributable to pretraining are driven primarily by the pretraining objective itself and are not always attributable to the use of external pretraining data in massive amounts. These findings are especially relevant in light of concerns about intellectual property and offensive content in web-scale pretraining data.

Kundan Krishna, Joseph Y Cheng, Charles Maalouf et al.

Existing paradigms for ensuring AI safety, such as guardrail models and alignment training, often compromise either inference efficiency or development flexibility. We introduce Disentangled Safety Adapters (DSA), a novel framework addressing these challenges by decoupling safety-specific computations from a task-optimized base model. DSA utilizes lightweight adapters that leverage the base model's internal representations, enabling diverse and flexible safety functionalities with minimal impact on inference cost. Empirically, DSA-based safety guardrails substantially outperform comparably sized standalone models, notably improving hallucination detection (0.88 vs. 0.61 AUC on Summedits) and also excelling at classifying hate speech (0.98 vs. 0.92 on ToxiGen) and unsafe model inputs and responses (0.93 vs. 0.90 on AEGIS2.0 & BeaverTails). Furthermore, DSA-based safety alignment allows dynamic, inference-time adjustment of alignment strength and a fine-grained trade-off between instruction following performance and model safety. Importantly, combining the DSA safety guardrail with DSA safety alignment facilitates context-dependent alignment strength, boosting safety on StrongReject by 93% while maintaining 98% performance on MTBench -- a total reduction in alignment tax of 8 percentage points compared to standard safety alignment fine-tuning. Overall, DSA presents a promising path towards more modular, efficient, and adaptable AI safety and alignment.

Hsuan Su, Ting-Yao Hu, Hema Swetha Koppula et al.

Large language models (LLMs) often generate hallucinations -- unsupported content that undermines reliability. While most prior works frame hallucination detection as a binary task, many real-world applications require identifying hallucinated spans, which is a multi-step decision making process. This naturally raises the question of whether explicit reasoning can help the complex task of detecting hallucination spans. To answer this question, we first evaluate pretrained models with and without Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning, and show that CoT reasoning has the potential to generate at least one correct answer when sampled multiple times. Motivated by this, we propose RL4HS, a reinforcement learning framework that incentivizes reasoning with a span-level reward function. RL4HS builds on Group Relative Policy Optimization and introduces Class-Aware Policy Optimization to mitigate reward imbalance issue. Experiments on the RAGTruth benchmark (summarization, question answering, data-to-text) show that RL4HS surpasses pretrained reasoning models and supervised fine-tuning, demonstrating the necessity of reinforcement learning with span-level rewards for detecting hallucination spans.

Hua Shen, Tiffany Knearem, Reshmi Ghosh et al.

Recent advances in general-purpose AI underscore the urgent need to align AI systems with human goals and values. Yet, the lack of a clear, shared understanding of what constitutes "alignment" limits meaningful progress and cross-disciplinary collaboration. In this position paper, we argue that the research community should explicitly define and critically reflect on "alignment" to account for the bidirectional and dynamic relationship between humans and AI. Through a systematic review of over 400 papers spanning HCI, NLP, ML, and more, we examine how alignment is currently defined and operationalized. Building on this analysis, we introduce the Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment framework, which not only incorporates traditional efforts to align AI with human values but also introduces the critical, underexplored dimension of aligning humans with AI -- supporting cognitive, behavioral, and societal adaptation to rapidly advancing AI technologies. Our findings reveal significant gaps in current literature, especially in long-term interaction design, human value modeling, and mutual understanding. We conclude with three central challenges and actionable recommendations to guide future research toward more nuanced, reciprocal, and human-AI alignment approaches.