Papers for
interactive language model developers
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Efficient fine-tuning of language models speeds up recommendation systems
Merge and Branch: Efficient Tree-Structured Supervised Fine-Tuning of LLMs for Recommendation
Abstract: LLM-based generative recommendation reads long, text-rich interaction histories but generates only short semantic identifiers (SIDs). This asymmetry makes supervised fine-tuning inefficient: encoding the history is expensive, yet each history usually provides supervision for only one target. We present Merge and Branch (M&B) to reduce input cost and learn more from each encoded history. Merge compresses each historical item's SID and text into a small number of learned tokens. Branch uses the compressed history to predict multiple target SIDs. To share history computation while keeping these targets independent, M&B organizes each example as a shallow, wide tree. We develop tree FlashAttention to execute this layout efficiently, processing the shared history once and propagating gradients from every branch for end-to-end training. A tree-structured key/value cache extends history sharing to constrained decoding. Experiments on public benchmarks show that M&B outperforms strong recommendation baselines while substantially improving training and decoding efficiency.
Conservative bandits ensure safe learning from user preferences
Conservative Dueling Bandits: Preference Learning under Baseline Constraints
Abstract: Contextual dueling bandits learn from pairwise comparisons, the same feedback used to fine-tune language models from human preferences. Standard algorithms explore aggressively and can show users two poor options. We study conservative contextual dueling bandits, which require that, at every round, the cumulative score of the better displayed item stay above a $(1-α)$ fraction of a trusted baseline's. An item's score is its probability of beating the best available item, so the constraint depends only on utility differences and needs no absolute rewards. This also changes how safety can be certified: we show that transferring the safety test of the conservative bandit algorithm CLUCB unchanged can incur linear regret, even when the baseline's utilities are known exactly. For linear utilities, we develop MaxInP-BC, which certifies scores through utility gaps and, when it must fall back, pairs the baseline with an informative partner so that fallback rounds still drive learning. It is safe with high probability at all times, with regret $\tilde{O}(d\sqrt{T}/κ)$ plus an additive cost of conservatism that does not grow with the horizon. For general utility classes, we develop BTIGW-BC, which turns the guarantee of an online logistic-regression oracle into cumulative safety certificates. It is safe at all times, makes finitely many fallbacks, and has sublinear regret whenever the oracle's logistic regret is sublinear. In experiments, both satisfy the constraint, which their unconstrained counterparts often violate, at a moderate cost in regret.