Papers for

product managers in ai companies

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.

Large language models struggle to generate good research ideas alone

Re-Search: Dissecting LLM Ideation Through a Two-Player Questioning Game

Abstract: Research ideation is iterative: researchers refine their ideas step by step based on feedback. Yet existing evaluations obscure this search process, making it difficult to understand how LLMs explore the space of research ideas and what limits their progress. We introduce Re-Search, which adapts the format of Twenty Questions to research ideation: given only the research problem of a published paper, a model must rediscover the paper's core idea by asking yes-or-no questions. Built from 200 ICML 2026 papers, Re-Search tracks how a model's idea evolves as it asks questions and receives binary oracle feedback, isolating ideation from execution. Across six recent LLMs, nearly all progress happens within the first 30 of 100 questions, which largely decide how the game ends; after that, most models plateau. Through controlled interventions on the candidate questions and the hypothesis space, we find that the bottleneck is generation, not judgment: models recognize a good idea or a good question when one is offered, but often cannot produce it on their own. We further analyze the ideation traces and find that models fail by either over-exploiting one direction or over-exploring too many. These findings point to concrete design principles for autoresearch systems: since models can judge candidates they cannot produce, enriching the search with externally sourced ideas and questions may be more effective than improving any single model's generation ability.

Tue 10 NovArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Figuring out new research ideas usually happens step by step, with feedback helping improve them. The authors created a game called Re-Search where language models try to guess a paper’s main idea by asking yes-or-no questions. They found that these models get most of their progress early on but then get stuck. The main problem is that models can recognize good ideas when shown to them but have trouble coming up with these ideas by themselves. This suggests adding ideas from outside sources could help improve research creativity.
Open → 2611.14487v1

Aligning large language models to human values with math and algorithms

Aligning Large Language Models with Human Feedback: Mathematical Foundations and Algorithm Design

Abstract: This article provides an introduction to the mathematical foundations and algorithmic frameworks used to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human intentions, preferences, and values. We discuss standard alignment techniques, such as fine-tuning (SFT), reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF), and direct preference optimization (DPO). We also explore the theoretical underpinnings of learning from human preferences, drawing connections to inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) and discrete choice models. We present state-of-the-art algorithms in a tutorial style, discuss their advantages and limitations, and offer insights into practical implementation. Our exposition is intended to serve as a comprehensive resource for researchers and practitioners, providing both a foundational understanding of alignment methodologies and a framework for developing more robust and scalable alignment techniques.

Thu 22 OctMachine LearningComputation and Language
The gist
Large language models sometimes give answers that don’t match what people really want or expect. This paper explains the math and step-by-step methods that help adjust those models to align better with human opinions and values. It covers common techniques like training on examples, using feedback from people to guide learning, and optimizing directly for what people prefer. The authors also show how these ideas connect to other theories about learning from choices. Their goal is to provide a clear guide for those building safer and more useful language models.
Open → 2610.31862v1

Fairness measured by stability under changing group data

A Comprehensive View of Fairness through Distributional Stability

Abstract: We view fairness as a property of distributional stability. Rather than assessing a predictor under a fixed data distribution, we study how its predictions change under perturbations that modify the composition of protected groups. A predictor is fair if it remains stable under such shifts. Under this perspective, several classical notions of fairness arise as stability with respect to specific perturbations, with the associated unfairness gap given by a Lipschitz constant of a prediction-rate functional. This formulation also yields guarantees that hold uniformly over a range of demographic compositions at test time, without requiring knowledge of the deployment distribution. It leads to a learning procedure based on convex combinations of reweighted predictors, formulated as a second-order cone program, for which we establish generalization bounds. Experiments on standard benchmarks illustrate the approach.

Tue 29 SeptMachine LearningArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Deciding if computer predictions are fair is tricky because real-world groups can change in makeup. This paper looks at fairness as how much a prediction stays consistent when the group data shifts. The authors show that many common fairness ideas fit this view and create a way to measure unfairness using mathematical tools. They propose a method to train fair prediction systems that work well even as group compositions vary. Tests on common examples show how this approach can be applied.
Open → 2609.37061v1