Nancy Chen

Zhiliang Chen, Alfred Wei Lun Leong, Shao Yong Ong et al.

Co-optimizing data and model configurations for training LLMs presents a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma: The best training data configuration (e.g., data mixture) for a downstream task depends on the chosen model configuration (e.g., model architecture), and vice versa. However, jointly optimizing both data and model configurations is often deemed intractable, and existing methods focus on either data or model optimization without considering their interaction. We introduce JoBS, an approach that uses a scaling-law-inspired performance predictor to aid Bayesian optimization (BO) in jointly optimizing LLM training data and model configurations efficiently. JoBS allocates a portion of the optimization budget to learn an LLM performance predictor that predicts how promising a training configuration is from a small number of training steps. The remaining budget is used to perform BO entirely with the predictor, effectively amortizing the cost of running full-training runs. We study JoBS's average regret and devise the optimal budget allocation to minimize regret. JoBS outperforms existing multi-fidelity BO baselines, as well as data and model optimization approaches across diverse LLM tasks under the same optimization budget.

Fady Rezk, Yuangang Pan, Chuan-Sheng Foo et al.

Personalized alignment from preference data has focused primarily on improving personal reward model (RM) accuracy, with the implicit assumption that better preference ranking translates to better personalized behavior. However, in deployment, computational constraints necessitate inference-time adaptation such as reward-guided decoding (RGD) rather than per-user policy fine-tuning. This creates a critical but overlooked requirement: reward models must not only rank preferences accurately but also effectively guide generation. We demonstrate that standard RM accuracy fails catastrophically as a selection criterion for deployment-ready personalized rewards. We introduce policy accuracy; a metric quantifying whether RGD-adapted LLMs correctly discriminate between preferred and dispreferred responses and show that upstream RM accuracy correlates only weakly with downstream policy accuracy (Kendall's tau = 0.08--0.31). More critically, we introduce Pref-LaMP the first personalized alignment benchmark with ground-truth user completions, enabling direct behavioural evaluation. On Pref-LaMP, we expose a complete decoupling between discriminative ranking and generation metrics: methods with 20-point RM accuracy differences produce almost identical output quality, and methods with high ranking accuracy can fail to generate behaviorally aligned responses. These findings reveal that the field has been optimizing for proxy metrics that do not predict deployment performance, and that current personalized alignment methods fail to operationalize preferences into behavioral adaptation under realistic deployment constraints. In contrast, we find simple in-context learning (ICL) to be highly effective - dominating all reward-guided methods for models $\geq$3B parameters, achieving $\sim$3 point ROUGE-1 gains over the best reward method at 7B scale.