Daily Papers

Correcting health misinformation in dialogue requires more than producing a factual rebuttal: users differ in what they know, what they believe, and what they need to hear, so an effective intervention often depends on first asking the right clarifying question. Yet existing methods either respond immediately or probe indiscriminately, treating clarification as either unnecessary or always beneficial. We propose Reward-Optimized Probe-and-Respond (RO-PnR), a framework that learns when asking is worth its cost. At each turn, RO-PnR chooses between probing for more information and committing to a final correction, guided by a turn-level reward that weighs the expected gain from probing against its interaction cost. To capture how user heterogeneity affects probing value, we model each simulated user with a latent state along health literacy and belief commitment. Experiments show that RO-PnR achieves the highest cost-adjusted utility across three health-misinformation datasets and three base models, using 30% fewer turns than always-probe baselines.

Ecological systems are dynamic and policies to manage them need to respond to that variation. However, policy adjustments will sometimes be costly, which means that fine-tuning a policy to track variability in the environment very tightly will only sometimes be worthwhile. We use a classic fisheries management question -- how to manage a stochastically varying population using annually varying quotas in order to maximize profit -- to examine how costs of policy adjustment change optimal management recommendations. Costs of policy adjustment (here changes in fishing quotas through time) could take different forms. For example, these costs may respond to the size of the change being implemented, or there could be a fixed cost any time a quota change is made. We show how different forms of policy costs have contrasting implications for optimal policies. Though it is frequently assumed that costs to adjusting policies will dampen variation in the policy, we show that certain cost structures can actually increase variation through time. We further show that failing to account for adjustment costs has a consistently worse economic impact than would assuming these costs are present when they are not.

As language models are increasingly deployed in real-world scenarios with important outcomes, the impact of their mistakes often extends far beyond what correctness can capture. In domains like medicine, a single error can lead to serious consequences and put patient safety at risk. However, mainstream evaluation protocols still treat all errors as equal, overlooking the spectrum of real-world costs. To address this, we propose a utility-based evaluation paradigm that explicitly incorporates the varying consequences of errors. Guided by this principle, we develop UtilityBench, a large-scale benchmark of 15,000 instances with verifiable answers, quantifying error severity using Best-Worst Scaling to elicit meaningful, data-driven cost estimates. These quantified utilities shape when a model should answer or abstain, guiding it to make decisions that align with the true importance of each scenario. As another merit, we introduce UtilityAUC, a metric that measures the area under the utility curve determined by a model's response ordering, thereby enabling utility preference alignment beyond error frequency. Our theoretical analysis demonstrates that UtilityAUC can distinguish between models where standard accuracy and AURC fall short. Empirically, evaluating 20 state-of-the-art models, we find that greater accuracy or more advanced architectures do not reliably translate to higher UtilityAUC, highlighting a gap between problem-solving ability and responsible decision-making in language model evaluation.

Increasing the thinking budget of AI models can significantly improve accuracy, but not all questions warrant the same amount of reasoning. Users may prefer to allocate different amounts of reasoning effort depending on how they value output quality versus latency and cost. To leverage this tradeoff effectively, users need fine-grained control over the amount of thinking used for a particular query, but few approaches enable such control. Existing methods require users to specify the absolute number of desired tokens, but this requires knowing the difficulty of the problem beforehand to appropriately set the token budget for a query. To address these issues, we propose Adaptive Effort Control, a self-adaptive reinforcement learning method that trains models to use a user-specified fraction of tokens relative to the current average chain-of-thought length for each query. This approach eliminates dataset- and phase-specific tuning while producing better cost-accuracy tradeoff curves compared to standard methods. Users can dynamically adjust the cost-accuracy trade-off through a continuous effort parameter specified at inference time. We observe that the model automatically learns to allocate resources proportionally to the task difficulty and, across model scales ranging from 1.5B to 32B parameters, our approach enables a 2-3x reduction in chain-of-thought length while maintaining or improving performance relative to the base model used for RL training.

Urban assessments often compress diverse needs into single scores, which can obscure minority perspectives. We present a community-centered study in Montreal (n=35; wheelchair users, seniors, LGBTQIA2+ residents, and immigrants). Participants rated 20 streets (accessibility, inclusivity, aesthetics, practicality) and ranked 7 images on 12 interview-elicited criteria. Disagreement patterns were systematic in our sample: wheelchair users diverged most on accessibility and practicality; LGBTQIA2+ participants emphasized inclusion and liveliness; seniors prioritized security. Group discussion reduced information gaps but not value conflicts; ratings conveyed intensity, while rankings forced trade-offs. We then formalize negotiative alignment, a transparent, budget-aware bargaining procedure, and pilot it with role-played stakeholder agents plus a neutral mediator. Relative to the best base design under the same public rubric, the negotiated package increased total utility (21.10 to 24.55), raised the worst-group utility (3.20 to 3.90), improved twentieth percentile satisfaction (0.86 to 1.00; min-max normalized within the scenario), and reduced inequality (Gini 0.036 to 0.025). Treating disagreement as signal and reporting worst-group outcomes alongside totals may help planners and AI practitioners surface trade-offs and preserve minority priorities while maintaining efficiency.

Risk-averse reinforcement learning finds application in various high-stakes fields. Unlike classical reinforcement learning, which aims to maximize expected returns, risk-averse agents choose policies that minimize risk, occasionally sacrificing expected value. These preferences can be framed through utility theory. We focus on the specific case of the exponential utility function, where we can derive the Bellman equations and employ various reinforcement learning algorithms with few modifications. However, these methods suffer from numerical instability due to the need for exponent computation throughout the process. To address this, we introduce a numerically stable and mathematically sound loss function based on the Itakura-Saito divergence for learning state-value and action-value functions. We evaluate our proposed loss function against established alternatives, both theoretically and empirically. In the experimental section, we explore multiple financial scenarios, some with known analytical solutions, and show that our loss function outperforms the alternatives.