Linyi Yang

Minjun Zhu, Yixuan Weng, Linyi Yang et al.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) typically aim to reflect general human values and behaviors, but they often fail to capture the unique characteristics and preferences of individual users. To address this gap, we introduce the concept of Personality Alignment. This approach tailors LLMs' responses and decisions to match the specific preferences of individual users or closely related groups. Inspired by psychometrics, we created the Personality Alignment with Personality Inventories (PAPI) dataset, which includes data from over 320,000 real subjects across multiple personality assessments, including both the Big Five Personality Factors and Dark Triad traits. This comprehensive dataset enables quantitative evaluation of LLMs' alignment capabilities across both positive and potentially problematic personality dimensions. Recognizing the challenges of personality alignments, such as limited personal data, diverse preferences, and scalability requirements, we developed an activation intervention optimization method. This method enhances LLMs' ability to efficiently align with individual behavioral preferences using minimal data and computational resources. Remarkably, our method, PAS, achieves superior performance while requiring only 1/5 of the optimization time compared to DPO, offering practical value for personality alignment. Our work paves the way for future AI systems to make decisions and reason in truly personality ways, enhancing the relevance and meaning of AI interactions for each user and advancing human-centered artificial intelligence. The dataset and code are released at https://github.com/zhu-minjun/PAlign.

Qiujie Xie, Qingqiu Li, Zhuohao Yu et al. · pku

As LLM-as-a-Judge emerges as a new paradigm for assessing large language models (LLMs), concerns have been raised regarding the alignment, bias, and stability of LLM evaluators. While substantial work has focused on alignment and bias, little research has concentrated on the stability of LLM evaluators. In this paper, we conduct extensive experiments involving 9 widely used LLM evaluators across 2 different evaluation settings to investigate the uncertainty in model-based LLM evaluations. We pinpoint that LLM evaluators exhibit varying uncertainty based on model families and sizes. With careful comparative analyses, we find that employing special prompting strategies, whether during inference or post-training, can alleviate evaluation uncertainty to some extent. By utilizing uncertainty to enhance LLM's reliability and detection capability in Out-Of-Distribution (OOD) data, we further fine-tune an uncertainty-aware LLM evaluator named ConfiLM using a human-annotated fine-tuning set and assess ConfiLM's OOD evaluation ability on a manually designed test set sourced from the 2024 Olympics. Experimental results demonstrate that incorporating uncertainty as additional information during the fine-tuning phase can largely improve the model's evaluation performance in OOD scenarios. The code and data are released at: https://github.com/hasakiXie123/LLM-Evaluator-Uncertainty.

Yuxiang Chen, Zuohan Wu, Ziwei Wang et al.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have garnered significant attention from researchers owing to their exceptional capability in addressing complex tasks. Motivated by the observed human-like behaviors in their reasoning processes, this paper introduces a comprehensive taxonomy to characterize atomic reasoning steps and probe the ``psyche'' of LRM intelligence. Specifically, it comprises five groups and seventeen categories derived from human mental processes, thereby grounding the understanding of LRMs in an interdisciplinary perspective. The taxonomy is then applied for an in-depth understanding of current LRMs, resulting in a distinct labeled dataset that comprises 277,534 atomic reasoning steps. Using this resource, we analyze contemporary LRMs and distill several actionable takeaways for improving training and post-training of reasoning models. Notably, our analysis reveals that prevailing post-answer ``double-checks'' (self-monitoring evaluations) are largely superficial and rarely yield substantive revisions. Thus, incentivizing comprehensive multi-step reflection, rather than simple self-monitoring, may offer a more effective path forward. To complement the taxonomy, an automatic annotation framework, named CAPO, is proposed to leverage large language models (LLMs) for generating the taxonomy-based annotations. Experimental results demonstrate that CAPO achieves higher consistency with human experts compared to baselines, facilitating a scalable and comprehensive analysis of LRMs from a human cognitive perspective. Together, the taxonomy, CAPO, and the derived insights provide a principled, scalable path toward understanding and advancing LRM reasoning.

Minjun Zhu, Yixuan Weng, Linyi Yang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in scientific research assessment, particularly in automated paper review. However, existing LLM-based review systems face significant challenges, including limited domain expertise, hallucinated reasoning, and a lack of structured evaluation. To address these limitations, we introduce DeepReview, a multi-stage framework designed to emulate expert reviewers by incorporating structured analysis, literature retrieval, and evidence-based argumentation. Using DeepReview-13K, a curated dataset with structured annotations, we train DeepReviewer-14B, which outperforms CycleReviewer-70B with fewer tokens. In its best mode, DeepReviewer-14B achieves win rates of 88.21\% and 80.20\% against GPT-o1 and DeepSeek-R1 in evaluations. Our work sets a new benchmark for LLM-based paper review, with all resources publicly available. The code, model, dataset and demo have be released in http://ai-researcher.net.

Guangsheng Bao, Hongbo Zhang, Cunxiang Wang et al.

Chain-of-thought emerges as a promising technique for eliciting reasoning capabilities from Large Language Models (LLMs). However, it does not always improve task performance or accurately represent reasoning processes, leaving unresolved questions about its usage. In this paper, we diagnose the underlying mechanism by comparing the reasoning process of LLMs with humans, using causal analysis to understand the relationships between the problem instruction, reasoning, and the answer in LLMs. Our empirical study reveals that LLMs often deviate from the ideal causal chain, resulting in spurious correlations and potential consistency errors (inconsistent reasoning and answers). We also examine various factors influencing the causal structure, finding that in-context learning with examples strengthens it, while post-training techniques like supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning on human feedback weaken it. To our surprise, the causal structure cannot be strengthened by enlarging the model size only, urging research on new techniques. We hope that this preliminary study will shed light on understanding and improving the reasoning process in LLM.

Qingyu Yin, Chak Tou Leong, Minjun Zhu et al.

The alignment of large language models (LLMs) with human preferences remains a key challenge. While post-training techniques like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) have achieved notable success, they often introduce computational inefficiencies and training instability. In this paper, we propose Feature-level constrained Preference Optimization (FPO), a novel method designed to simplify the alignment process while ensuring stability. FPO leverages pre-trained Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) and introduces feature-level constraints, allowing for efficient, sparsity-enforced alignment. Our approach enjoys efficiency by using sparse features activated in a well-trained sparse autoencoder and the quality of sequential KL divergence by using the feature-level offline reference. Experimental results on benchmark datasets demonstrate that FPO achieves a 5.08% absolute improvement in win rate with much lower computational cost compared to state-of-the-art baselines, making it a promising solution for efficient and controllable LLM alignments.

Hongbo Zhang, Han Cui, Guangsheng Bao et al.

We introduce Direct Value Optimization (DVO), an innovative reinforcement learning framework for enhancing large language models in complex reasoning tasks. Unlike traditional methods relying on preference labels, DVO utilizes value signals at individual reasoning steps, optimizing models via a mean squared error loss. The key benefit of DVO lies in its fine-grained supervision, circumventing the need for labor-intensive human annotations. Target values within the DVO are estimated using either Monte Carlo Tree Search or an outcome value model. Our empirical analysis on both mathematical and commonsense reasoning tasks shows that DVO consistently outperforms existing offline preference optimization techniques, even with fewer training steps. These findings underscore the importance of value signals in advancing reasoning capabilities and highlight DVO as a superior methodology under scenarios lacking explicit human preference information.

Shuxun Wang, Qingyu Yin, Chak Tou Leong et al.

Repetition curse is a phenomenon where Large Language Models (LLMs) generate repetitive sequences of tokens or cyclic sequences. While the repetition curse has been widely observed, its underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. In this work, we investigate the role of induction heads--a specific type of attention head known for their ability to perform in-context learning--in driving this repetitive behavior. Specifically, we focus on the "toxicity" of induction heads, which we define as their tendency to dominate the model's output logits during repetition, effectively excluding other attention heads from contributing to the generation process. Our findings have important implications for the design and training of LLMs. By identifying induction heads as a key driver of the repetition curse, we provide a mechanistic explanation for this phenomenon and suggest potential avenues for mitigation. We also propose a technique with attention head regularization that could be employed to reduce the dominance of induction heads during generation, thereby promoting more diverse and coherent outputs.

Qingyu Yin, Chak Tou Leong, Linyi Yang et al.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) with multi-step reasoning capabilities have shown remarkable problem-solving abilities, yet they exhibit concerning safety vulnerabilities that remain poorly understood. In this work, we investigate why safety alignment fails in reasoning models through a mechanistic interpretability lens. Using a linear probing approach to trace refusal intentions across token positions, we discover a striking phenomenon termed as \textbf{refusal cliff}: many poorly-aligned reasoning models correctly identify harmful prompts and maintain strong refusal intentions during their thinking process, but experience a sharp drop in refusal scores at the final tokens before output generation. This suggests that these models are not inherently unsafe; rather, their refusal intentions are systematically suppressed. Through causal intervention analysis, we identify a sparse set of attention heads that negatively contribute to refusal behavior. Ablating just 3\% of these heads can reduce attack success rates below 10\%. Building on these mechanistic insights, we propose \textbf{Cliff-as-a-Judge}, a novel data selection method that identifies training examples exhibiting the largest refusal cliff to efficiently repair reasoning models' safety alignment. This approach achieves comparable safety improvements using only 1.7\% of the vanilla safety training data, demonstrating a less-is-more effect in safety alignment.