Papers for

recommendation system teams

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.

Understanding limits of preference learning with logistic models

Statistical Learning Theory for Direct Preference Optimization

Abstract: Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) learns from pairwise preferences through a logistic objective whose score-difference parameterization follows the Bradley--Terry model. We study how failure of this modeling assumption limits DPO, distinguishing structural misspecification from limited model capacity and finite-sample estimation. Our main contribution is a characterization of structural approximation error through the triangle-curl of the preference log-odds, which vanishes exactly when preferences admit a Bradley--Terry representation. We upper bound the achievable excess logistic risk by a score-class approximation term and a triangle-curl term, and establish a lower bound proportional to triangle-curl under additional boundedness assumptions. For ReLU score models, including clipped models, we derive explicit approximation rates showing that increasing capacity can eliminate the score-approximation term while leaving the structural obstruction unchanged. We further establish finite-sample bounds for clipped empirical risk minimizers that separate network approximation, structural misspecification, and estimation error. We place these results within a surrogate-risk framework by identifying contextual preference accuracy (CPA) as a natural measure of agreement between preference judgments and changes in pairwise probability ratios relative to the reference policy. Standard logistic consistency and calibration results connect DPO's objective to this policy property and transfer our excess-risk upper bounds to CPA, without treating CPA as a complete measure of generated-response quality.

Mon 19 OctMachine Learning
The gist
When computers learn what people prefer by comparing pairs, they often assume a simple underlying model of preferences to make predictions. The authors examine what happens when this assumed model doesn’t perfectly fit real preferences, identifying a specific mathematical measure called the triangle-curl to describe the mismatch. They explain how this mismatch limits learning accuracy even if the model is very flexible and more data is added. Their results help separate errors from model choice, structural issues, and limited data.
Open → 2610.25856v1

Amortized off-policy evaluation lowers error for language models

Amortized Off-Policy Evaluation for LLMs

Abstract: Accurate evaluation is central to selecting which LLM to deploy, yet testing a candidate on live traffic exposes real users to an unvetted model. Teams therefore evaluate candidates offline, on data produced by already-deployed models. This is off-policy evaluation (OPE), and it faces two distribution shifts: as a model is updated in post-training, its responses diverge from the logged ones (policy shift), and the reward definition under which it is judged changes with business requirements (reward shift). Classical OPE methods are ill-suited to this continual-deployment setting because they are defined per task and require fitting from scratch on every new logged dataset or reward definition. To address this, we propose PFN-OPE, a prior-data fitted network that amortizes OPE across a distribution of contextual-bandit tasks. We pretrain it once on tasks constructed from a pool of LLM responses scored by several reward functions, in which both shifts occur. At test-time it maps a logged dataset and one sampled target response per prompt to a value estimate in a single forward pass, with no per-task fitting. On HelpSteer2 and UltraFeedback with Qwen, Llama, and Gemma policies, PFN-OPE achieves 2.0 to 9.3 times lower error than the best baselines across all tested configurations in the reward-shifted settings.

Wed 7 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Choosing the best language model to use can be tricky because testing new models directly on users can cause problems if the models are not good yet. The authors introduce a new method to estimate how well a new model will perform using past data from older models, even when the way performance is judged changes. Their method, called PFN-OPE, can quickly predict the quality of new language model responses without needing to learn from scratch each time. Tests showed this method is much more accurate than existing approaches.
Open → 2610.10848v1

Context-based evaluation finds top agents with robust game approach

Context-dependent agent evaluation with orthogonal equilibrium learning

Abstract: Many applications require to evaluate agents under contextual information (e.g., a prompt, task, or user group). We study how to perform such context-dependent agent evaluation from offline feedback. Existing score-based models for this purpose (e.g., Bradley-Terry) impose a transitive preference ordering, which fails to reflect collective preferences when human judgements are heterogeneous. Inspired by social choice theory, we frame evaluation as a contextual game between two players, each selecting a distribution over agents as the strategy to receive greater collective preference than the other. Then, the support of the Nash equilibrium defines a context-specific set of winners. However, learning context-specific equilibria from offline logs is difficult because each context reveals human feedback on only a subset of agents, and, hence, a naive plug-in estimator can therefore be biased. To address these challenges, we propose NashEval, a general framework for robust contextual equilibrium learning. NashEval first constructs debiased estimates of the contextual payoff matrix that characterizes the game. NashEval then learns the context-to-equilibrium mapping with a tailored orthogonal loss, which avoids the need to solve a separate game for each context. We show theoretically that errors in estimating the nuisance functions underlying the payoff matrix affect the risk of the learned equilibrium (i.e., exploitability) only through higher-order terms. Across various experiments, NashEval improves robustness of equilibrium learning and consistently identifies the set of top-performing agents across contexts.

Fri 25 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Evaluating how good different agents are can depend on the situation, like a task or user group. The authors look at ways to judge agents based on past feedback, but old methods assume that preferences are straightforward and consistent, which is not always true when people disagree. They treat evaluation as a game between two players choosing agents to see which group is preferred overall based on context. Their method, called NashEval, estimates this game carefully from limited data and learns which agents perform best in each situation, even with noisy or incomplete feedback.
Open → 2609.31897v1