A Theoretical Perspective for Speculative Decoding Algorithm

Transformer-based autoregressive sampling has been the major bottleneck for slowing down large language model inferences. One effective way to accelerate inference is \emph{Speculative Decoding}, which employs a small model to sample a sequence of draft tokens and a large model to validate. Given its empirical effectiveness, the theoretical understanding of Speculative Decoding is falling behind. This paper tackles this gap by conceptualizing the decoding problem via markov chain abstraction and studying the key properties, \emph{output quality and inference acceleration}, from a theoretical perspective. Our analysis covers the theoretical limits of speculative decoding, batch algorithms, and output quality-inference acceleration tradeoffs. Our results reveal the fundamental connections between different components of LLMs via total variation distances and show how they jointly affect the efficiency of decoding algorithms.

NetworkGym: Reinforcement Learning Environments for Multi-Access Traffic Management in Network Simulation

Mobile devices such as smartphones, laptops, and tablets can often connect to multiple access networks (e.g., Wi-Fi, LTE, and 5G) simultaneously. Recent advancements facilitate seamless integration of these connections below the transport layer, enhancing the experience for apps that lack inherent multi-path support. This optimization hinges on dynamically determining the traffic distribution across networks for each device, a process referred to as \textit{multi-access traffic splitting}. This paper introduces \textit{NetworkGym}, a high-fidelity network environment simulator that facilitates generating multiple network traffic flows and multi-access traffic splitting. This simulator facilitates training and evaluating different RL-based solutions for the multi-access traffic splitting problem. Our initial explorations demonstrate that the majority of existing state-of-the-art offline RL algorithms (e.g. CQL) fail to outperform certain hand-crafted heuristic policies on average. This illustrates the urgent need to evaluate offline RL algorithms against a broader range of benchmarks, rather than relying solely on popular ones such as D4RL. We also propose an extension to the TD3+BC algorithm, named Pessimistic TD3 (PTD3), and demonstrate that it outperforms many state-of-the-art offline RL algorithms. PTD3's behavioral constraint mechanism, which relies on value-function pessimism, is theoretically motivated and relatively simple to implement.

Fast Best-of-N Decoding via Speculative Rejection

The safe and effective deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) involves a critical step called alignment, which ensures that the model's responses are in accordance with human preferences. Prevalent alignment techniques, such as DPO, PPO and their variants, align LLMs by changing the pre-trained model weights during a phase called post-training. While predominant, these post-training methods add substantial complexity before LLMs can be deployed. Inference-time alignment methods avoid the complex post-training step and instead bias the generation towards responses that are aligned with human preferences. The best-known inference-time alignment method, called Best-of-N, is as effective as the state-of-the-art post-training procedures. Unfortunately, Best-of-N requires vastly more resources at inference time than standard decoding strategies, which makes it computationally not viable. In this work, we introduce Speculative Rejection, a computationally-viable inference-time alignment algorithm. It generates high-scoring responses according to a given reward model, like Best-of-N does, while being between 16 to 32 times more computationally efficient.

How Does the Disclosure of AI Assistance Affect the Perceptions of Writing?

Recent advances in generative AI technologies like large language models have boosted the incorporation of AI assistance in writing workflows, leading to the rise of a new paradigm of human-AI co-creation in writing. To understand how people perceive writings that are produced under this paradigm, in this paper, we conduct an experimental study to understand whether and how the disclosure of the level and type of AI assistance in the writing process would affect people's perceptions of the writing on various aspects, including their evaluation on the quality of the writing and their ranking of different writings. Our results suggest that disclosing the AI assistance in the writing process, especially if AI has provided assistance in generating new content, decreases the average quality ratings for both argumentative essays and creative stories. This decrease in the average quality ratings often comes with an increased level of variations in different individuals' quality evaluations of the same writing. Indeed, factors such as an individual's writing confidence and familiarity with AI writing assistants are shown to moderate the impact of AI assistance disclosure on their writing quality evaluations. We also find that disclosing the use of AI assistance may significantly reduce the proportion of writings produced with AI's content generation assistance among the top-ranked writings.

Understanding Decision Subjects' Engagement with and Perceived Fairness of AI Models When Opportunities of Qualification Improvement Exist

We explore how an AI model's decision fairness affects people's engagement with and perceived fairness of the model if they are subject to its decisions, but could repeatedly and strategically respond to these decisions. Two types of strategic responses are considered -- people could determine whether to continue interacting with the model, and whether to invest in themselves to improve their chance of future favorable decisions from the model. Via three human-subject experiments, we found that in decision subjects' strategic, repeated interactions with an AI model, the model's decision fairness does not change their willingness to interact with the model or to improve themselves, even when the model exhibits unfairness on salient protected attributes. However, decision subjects still perceive the AI model to be less fair when it systematically biases against their group, especially if the difficulty of improving one's qualification for the favorable decision is larger for the lowly-qualified people.

Relative-Translation Invariant Wasserstein Distance

We introduce a new family of distances, relative-translation invariant Wasserstein distances ($RW_p$), for measuring the similarity of two probability distributions under distribution shift. Generalizing it from the classical optimal transport model, we show that $RW_p$ distances are also real distance metrics defined on the quotient set $\mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R}^n)/\sim$ and invariant to distribution translations. When $p=2$, the $RW_2$ distance enjoys more exciting properties, including decomposability of the optimal transport model, translation-invariance of the $RW_2$ distance, and a Pythagorean relationship between $RW_2$ and the classical quadratic Wasserstein distance ($W_2$). Based on these properties, we show that a distribution shift, measured by $W_2$ distance, can be explained in the bias-variance perspective. In addition, we propose a variant of the Sinkhorn algorithm, named $RW_2$ Sinkhorn algorithm, for efficiently calculating $RW_2$ distance, coupling solutions, as well as $W_2$ distance. We also provide the analysis of numerical stability and time complexity for the proposed algorithm. Finally, we validate the $RW_2$ distance metric and the algorithm performance with three experiments. We conduct one numerical validation for the $RW_2$ Sinkhorn algorithm and show two real-world applications demonstrating the effectiveness of using $RW_2$ under distribution shift: digits recognition and similar thunderstorm detection. The experimental results report that our proposed algorithm significantly improves the computational efficiency of Sinkhorn in certain practical applications, and the $RW_2$ distance is robust to distribution translations compared with baselines.

MMMU-Pro: A More Robust Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Benchmark

This paper introduces MMMU-Pro, a robust version of the Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning (MMMU) benchmark. MMMU-Pro rigorously assesses multimodal models' true understanding and reasoning capabilities through a three-step process based on MMMU: (1) filtering out questions answerable by text-only models, (2) augmenting candidate options, and (3) introducing a vision-only input setting where questions are embedded within images. This setting challenges AI to truly "see" and "read" simultaneously, testing a fundamental human cognitive skill of seamlessly integrating visual and textual information. Results show that model performance is substantially lower on MMMU-Pro than on MMMU, ranging from 16.8% to 26.9% across models. We explore the impact of OCR prompts and Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning, finding that OCR prompts have minimal effect while CoT generally improves performance. MMMU-Pro provides a more rigorous evaluation tool, closely mimicking real-world scenarios and offering valuable directions for future research in multimodal AI.

Learning the Target Network in Function Space

We focus on the task of learning the value function in the reinforcement learning (RL) setting. This task is often solved by updating a pair of online and target networks while ensuring that the parameters of these two networks are equivalent. We propose Lookahead-Replicate (LR), a new value-function approximation algorithm that is agnostic to this parameter-space equivalence. Instead, the LR algorithm is designed to maintain an equivalence between the two networks in the function space. This value-based equivalence is obtained by employing a new target-network update. We show that LR leads to a convergent behavior in learning the value function. We also present empirical results demonstrating that LR-based target-network updates significantly improve deep RL on the Atari benchmark.

Transfer Q Star: Principled Decoding for LLM Alignment

Aligning foundation models is essential for their safe and trustworthy deployment. However, traditional fine-tuning methods are computationally intensive and require updating billions of model parameters. A promising alternative, alignment via decoding, adjusts the response distribution directly without model updates to maximize a target reward $r$, thus providing a lightweight and adaptable framework for alignment. However, principled decoding methods rely on oracle access to an optimal Q-function ($Q^*$), which is often unavailable in practice. Hence, prior SoTA methods either approximate this $Q^*$ using $Q^{\pi_{\texttt{sft}}}$ (derived from the reference $\texttt{SFT}$ model) or rely on short-term rewards, resulting in sub-optimal decoding performance. In this work, we propose Transfer $Q^*$, which implicitly estimates the optimal value function for a target reward $r$ through a baseline model $\rho_{\texttt{BL}}$ aligned with a baseline reward $\rho_{\texttt{BL}}$ (which can be different from the target reward $r$). Theoretical analyses of Transfer $Q^*$ provide a rigorous characterization of its optimality, deriving an upper bound on the sub-optimality gap and identifying a hyperparameter to control the deviation from the pre-trained reference $\texttt{SFT}$ model based on user needs. Our approach significantly reduces the sub-optimality gap observed in prior SoTA methods and demonstrates superior empirical performance across key metrics such as coherence, diversity, and quality in extensive tests on several synthetic and real datasets.

Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Making

In AI-assisted decision-making, humans often passively review AI's suggestion and decide whether to accept or reject it as a whole. In such a paradigm, humans are found to rarely trigger analytical thinking and face difficulties in communicating the nuances of conflicting opinions to the AI when disagreements occur. To tackle this challenge, we propose Human-AI Deliberation, a novel framework to promote human reflection and discussion on conflicting human-AI opinions in decision-making. Based on theories in human deliberation, this framework engages humans and AI in dimension-level opinion elicitation, deliberative discussion, and decision updates. To empower AI with deliberative capabilities, we designed Deliberative AI, which leverages large language models (LLMs) as a bridge between humans and domain-specific models to enable flexible conversational interactions and faithful information provision. An exploratory evaluation on a graduate admissions task shows that Deliberative AI outperforms conventional explainable AI (XAI) assistants in improving humans' appropriate reliance and task performance. Based on a mixed-methods analysis of participant behavior, perception, user experience, and open-ended feedback, we draw implications for future AI-assisted decision tool design.