Mykola Pechenizkiy

Qiang He, Yucheng Yang, Tianyi Zhou et al.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences is critical for enhancing LLMs' safety, helpfulness, humor, faithfulness, etc. Current reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) mainly focuses on a fixed reward learned from average human ratings, which may weaken the adaptability and controllability of varying preferences. However, creating personalized LLMs requires aligning LLMs with individual human preferences, which is non-trivial due to the scarce data per user and the diversity of user preferences in multi-objective trade-offs, varying from emphasizing empathy in certain contexts to demanding efficiency and precision in others. Can we train one LLM to produce personalized outputs across different user preferences on the Pareto front? In this paper, we introduce Multi-Objective Control (MOC), which trains a single LLM to directly generate responses in the preference-defined regions of the Pareto front. Our approach introduces multi-objective optimization (MOO) principles into RLHF to train an LLM as a preference-conditioned policy network. We improve the computational efficiency of MOC by applying MOO at the policy level, enabling us to fine-tune a 7B-parameter model on a single A6000 GPU. Extensive experiments demonstrate the advantages of MOC over baselines in three aspects: (i) controllability of LLM outputs w.r.t. user preferences on the trade-off among multiple rewards; (ii) quality and diversity of LLM outputs, measured by the hyper-volume of multiple solutions achieved; and (iii) generalization to unseen preferences. These results highlight MOC's potential for real-world applications requiring scalable and customizable LLMs.

Ben Halstead, Yun Sing Koh, Patricia Riddle et al.

Streaming sources of data are becoming more common as the ability to collect data in real-time grows. A major concern in dealing with data streams is concept drift, a change in the distribution of data over time, for example, due to changes in environmental conditions. Representing concepts (stationary periods featuring similar behaviour) is a key idea in adapting to concept drift. By testing the similarity of a concept representation to a window of observations, we can detect concept drift to a new or previously seen recurring concept. Concept representations are constructed using meta-information features, values describing aspects of concept behaviour. We find that previously proposed concept representations rely on small numbers of meta-information features. These representations often cannot distinguish concepts, leaving systems vulnerable to concept drift. We propose FiCSUM, a general framework to represent both supervised and unsupervised behaviours of a concept in a fingerprint, a vector of many distinct meta-information features able to uniquely identify more concepts. Our dynamic weighting strategy learns which meta-information features describe concept drift in a given dataset, allowing a diverse set of meta-information features to be used at once. FiCSUM outperforms state-of-the-art methods over a range of 11 real world and synthetic datasets in both accuracy and modeling underlying concept drift.

Rima Hazra, Bikram Ghuku, Ilona Marchenko et al.

Large language models are rapidly being deployed as AI tutors, yet current evaluation paradigms assess problem-solving accuracy and generic safety in isolation, failing to capture whether a model is simultaneously pedagogically effective and safe across student-tutor interaction. We argue that tutoring safety is fundamentally different from conventional LLM safety: the primary risk is not toxic content but the quiet erosion of learning through answer over-disclosure, misconception reinforcement, and the abdication of scaffolding. To systematically study this failure mode, we introduce SafeTutors, a benchmark that jointly evaluates safety and pedagogy across mathematics, physics, and chemistry. SafeTutors is organized around a theoretically grounded risk taxonomy comprising 11 harm dimensions and 48 sub-risks drawn from learning-science literature. We uncover that all models show broad harm; scale doesn't reliably help; and multi-turn dialogue worsens behavior, with pedagogical failures rising from 17.7% to 77.8%. Harms also vary by subject, so mitigations must be discipline-aware, and single-turn "safe/helpful" results can mask systematic tutor failure over extended interaction.