Zhen Xu
Publications
From Data to Behavior: Predicting Unintended Model Behaviors Before Training
Large Language Models (LLMs) can acquire unintended biases from seemingly benign training data even without explicit cues or malicious content. Existing methods struggle to detect such risks before fine-tuning, making post hoc evaluation costly and inefficient. To address this challenge, we introduce Data2Behavior, a new task for predicting unintended model behaviors prior to training. We also propose Manipulating Data Features (MDF), a lightweight approach that summarizes candidate data through their mean representations and injects them into the forward pass of a base model, allowing latent statistical signals in the data to shape model activations and reveal potential biases and safety risks without updating any parameters. MDF achieves reliable prediction while consuming only about 20% of the GPU resources required for fine-tuning. Experiments on Qwen3-14B, Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct, and Gemma-3-12b-it confirm that MDF can anticipate unintended behaviors and provide insight into pre-training vulnerabilities.
BEAR: Towards Beam-Search-Aware Optimization for Recommendation with Large Language Models
Recent years have witnessed a rapid surge in research leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for recommendation. These methods typically employ supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to adapt LLMs to recommendation scenarios, and utilize beam search during inference to efficiently retrieve $B$ top-ranked recommended items. However, we identify a critical training-inference inconsistency: while SFT optimizes the overall probability of positive items, it does not guarantee that such items will be retrieved by beam search even if they possess high overall probabilities. Due to the greedy pruning mechanism, beam search can prematurely discard a positive item once its prefix probability is insufficient. To address this inconsistency, we propose BEAR (Beam-SEarch-Aware Regularization), a novel fine-tuning objective that explicitly accounts for beam search behavior during training. Rather than directly simulating beam search for each instance during training, which is computationally prohibitive, BEAR enforces a relaxed necessary condition: each token in a positive item must rank within the top-$B$ candidate tokens at each decoding step. This objective effectively mitigates the risk of incorrect pruning while incurring negligible computational overhead compared to standard SFT. Extensive experiments across four real-world datasets demonstrate that BEAR significantly outperforms strong baselines. Code will be released upon acceptance.
Enhancing LLM-Based Data Annotation with Error Decomposition
Large language models offer a scalable alternative to human coding for data annotation tasks, enabling the scale-up of research across data-intensive domains. While LLMs are already achieving near-human accuracy on objective annotation tasks, their performance on subjective annotation tasks, such as those involving psychological constructs, is less consistent and more prone to errors. Standard evaluation practices typically collapse all annotation errors into a single alignment metric, but this simplified approach may obscure different kinds of errors that affect final analytical conclusions in different ways. Here, we propose a diagnostic evaluation paradigm that incorporates a human-in-the-loop step to separate task-inherent ambiguity from model-driven inaccuracies and assess annotation quality in terms of their potential downstream impacts. We refine this paradigm on ordinal annotation tasks, which are common in subjective annotation. The refined paradigm includes: (1) a diagnostic taxonomy that categorizes LLM annotation errors along two dimensions: source (model-specific vs. task-inherent) and type (boundary ambiguity vs. conceptual misidentification); (2) a lightweight human annotation test to estimate task-inherent ambiguity from LLM annotations; and (3) a computational method to decompose observed LLM annotation errors following our taxonomy. We validate this paradigm on four educational annotation tasks, demonstrating both its conceptual validity and practical utility. Theoretically, our work provides empirical evidence for why excessively high alignment is unrealistic in specific annotation tasks and why single alignment metrics inadequately reflect the quality of LLM annotations. In practice, our paradigm can be a low-cost diagnostic tool that assesses the suitability of a given task for LLM annotation and provides actionable insights for further technical optimization.