Marcel Hussing
Publications
Reward Bias Substitution: Single-Axis Bias Mitigations Redirect Optimization Pressure
Single-axis mitigations of reward-model biases (e.g., reducing proxy reliance on length, sycophancy, or style) can rotate optimization pressure onto correlated proxies rather than eliminate it, a failure mode we call reward bias substitution. The failure is enabled by a measurement-versus-optimization gap between audit and policy-induced distributions during mitigation evaluation and policy training. We formalize mitigation outcomes into a regime taxonomy and prove that successful mitigation, bias substitution, and overcorrection produce identical observables under any audit-distribution scoring, including ranking accuracy and win-rate, even when granted oracle access to the true reward. Across published preference-learning mitigation work, no method we survey reports the evidence needed to certify successful mitigation. Augmenting evaluation with policy-induced distributions while tracking multiple biases provably closes the gap, and we translate this into actionable prescriptions for mitigation methods and benchmarks. We demonstrate bias substitution in language model RLHF, where a length penalty during GRPO training compresses responses as intended yet redirects optimization pressure onto confidence calibration, driving the policy into overconfidence while factual free-form accuracy falls. We also show a published length-debiasing operator that zeroes reward-length correlation on the audit distribution but reintroduces bias under best-of-N selection on three of four SOTA reward models, and a length-sycophancy coupling whose direction reverses under human-LLM judge disagreement.
Model Agreement via Anchoring
Numerous lines of aim to control $\textit{model disagreement}$ -- the extent to which two machine learning models disagree in their predictions. We adopt a simple and standard notion of model disagreement in real-valued prediction problems, namely the expected squared difference in predictions between two models trained on independent samples, without any coordination of the training processes. We would like to be able to drive disagreement to zero with some natural parameter(s) of the training procedure using analyses that can be applied to existing training methodologies. We develop a simple general technique for proving bounds on independent model disagreement based on $\textit{anchoring}$ to the average of two models within the analysis. We then apply this technique to prove disagreement bounds for four commonly used machine learning algorithms: (1) stacked aggregation over an arbitrary model class (where disagreement is driven to 0 with the number of models $k$ being stacked) (2) gradient boosting (where disagreement is driven to 0 with the number of iterations $k$) (3) neural network training with architecture search (where disagreement is driven to 0 with the size $n$ of the architecture being optimized over) and (4) regression tree training over all regression trees of fixed depth (where disagreement is driven to 0 with the depth $d$ of the tree architecture). For clarity, we work out our initial bounds in the setting of one-dimensional regression with squared error loss -- but then show that all of our results generalize to multi-dimensional regression with any strongly convex loss.