Aligning Model Properties via Conformal Risk Control
Open accessAbstract
AI model alignment is crucial due to inadvertent biases in training data and the underspecified machine learning pipeline, where models with excellent test metrics may not meet end-user requirements. While post-training alignment via human feedback shows promise, these methods are often limited to generative AI settings where humans can interpret and provide feedback on model outputs. In traditional non-generative settings with numerical or categorical outputs, detecting misalignment through single-sample outputs remains challenging, and enforcing alignment during training requires repeating costly training processes. In this paper we consider an alternative strategy. We propose interpreting model alignment through property testing, defining an aligned model $f$ as one belonging to a subset $\mathcal{P}$ of functions that exhibit specific desired behaviors. We focus on post-processing a pre-trained model $f$ to better align with $\mathcal{P}$ using conformal risk control. Specifically, we develop a general procedure for converting queries for testing a given property $\mathcal{P}$ to a collection of loss functions suitable for use in a conformal risk control algorithm. We prove a probabilistic guarantee that the resulting conformal interval around $f$ contains a function approximately satisfying $\mathcal{P}$. We exhibit applications of our methodology on a collection of supervised learning datasets for (shape-constrained) properties such as monotonicity and concavity. The general procedure is flexible and can be applied to a wide range of desired properties. Finally, we prove that pre-trained models will always require alignment techniques even as model sizes or training data increase, as long as the training data contains even small biases.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models
Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · Cited by 1,749 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Given the outstanding capabilities of modern AI models with substantially large numbers of parameters and training data, one may argue that the alignment problem may naturally disappear as such advances continue (Kaplan et al., 2020).”
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Stephen Bates, Adam Fisch, Lihua Lei, and Tal Schuster. Conformal risk control. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2024.
- Vipul Arora, Arnab Bhattacharyya, Noah Fleming, Esty Kelman, and Yuichi Yoshida. Low Degree Testing over the Reals, pages 738-792. 2023. doi: 10.1137/1.9781611977554.ch31. URL https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/1.9781611977554.ch31. · DOI
- Feras A. Batarseh, Laura Freeman, and Chih-Hao Huang. A survey on artificial in- telligence assurance. Journal of Big Data, 8(1), April 2021. ISSN 2196-1115. doi: 10.1186/s40537-021-00445-7. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40537-021-00445-7. · DOI
- Arnab Bhattacharyya, Swastik Kopparty, Grant Robert Schoenebeck, Madhu Sudan, and David Zuckerman. Optimal testing of reed-muller codes. 2010 IEEE 51st An- nual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 488-497, 2009. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:25924.
- Eric Blais. Testing juntas nearly optimally. pages 151-158, 05 2009. doi: 10.1145/1536414. 1536437. · DOI
- Manuel Blum, Michael Luby, and Ronitt Rubinfeld. Self-testing/correcting with applications to numerical problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 47(3):549-595, 1993. ISSN 0022-0000. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0000(93)90044-W. URL https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002200009390044W. · DOI
- Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. Convex optimization. Cambridge university press, 2004.
- Hugh D. Brunk, Richard E. Barlow, David J. Bartholomew, and Joan M. Bremner. Statistical inference under order restrictions : the theory and application of isotonic regression. International Statistical Review, 41:395, 1973. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:120349543.
- Simon Caton and Christian Haas. Fairness in machine learning: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 56(7), April 2024. ISSN 0360-0300. doi: 10.1145/3616865. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3616865. · DOI · Paper page
- Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '16. ACM, August 2016. doi: 10.1145/2939672.2939785. URL http://dx. doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785. · DOI · Paper page
- Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, edi- tors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30.
- Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/ d5e2c0adad503c91f91df240d0cd4e49-Paper.pdf.
- Alexander D'Amour, Katherine Heller, Dan Moldovan, Ben Adlam, Babak Alipanahi, Alex Beutel, Christina Chen, Jonathan Deaton, Jacob Eisenstein, Matthew D. Hoffman, Farhad Hormozdiari, Neil Houlsby, Shaobo Hou, Ghassen Jerfel, Alan Karthikesalingam, Mario Lucic, Yian Ma, Cory McLean, Diana Mincu, Akinori Mitani, Andrea Montanari, Zachary Nado, Vivek Natarajan, Christopher Nielson, Thomas F. Osborne, Rajiv Raman, Kim Ramasamy, Rory Sayres, Jessica Schrouff, Martin Seneviratne, Shannon Sequeira, Harini Suresh, Victor Veitch, Max Vladymyrov, Xuezhi Wang, Kellie Webster, Steve Yadlowsky, Taedong Yun, Xiaohua Zhai, and D. Sculley. Underspecification presents challenges for credibility in modern machine learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(1), jan 2022. ISSN 1532-4435.
- Tom Everitt, Gary Lea, and Marcus Hutter. Agi safety literature review, 2018.
- Noah Fleming and Yuichi Yoshida. Distribution-free testing of linear functions on R n . In Thomas Vidick, editor, 11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2020), volume 151 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 22:1- 22:19, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2020. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik. ISBN 978-3-95977-134-4. doi: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2020.22. URL https://drops.dagstuhl. de/opus/volltexte/2020/11707. · DOI
- Oded Goldreich. Introduction to Property Testing. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
- Oded Goldreich and Dana Ron. On proximity-oblivious testing. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), 15, 01 2008. doi: 10.1137/100789646. · DOI
- Piet Groeneboom and Geurt Jongbloed. Nonparametric Estimation under Shape Constraints: Estimators, Algorithms and Asymptotics. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014. ISBN 978-0-521-86401-5. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139020893. · DOI
- Shirley Halevy and Eyal Kushilevitz. Distribution-free property-testing. SIAM J. Comput., 37:1107-1138, 01 2007. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-45198-3_26. · DOI
- Porter Jenkins, Ahmad Farag, J. Stockton Jenkins, Huaxiu Yao, Suhang Wang, and Zhenhui Li. Neural utility functions. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(9):7917-7925, May 2021. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v35i9.16966. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/ index.php/AAAI/article/view/16966. · DOI
- Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12):1-38, March 2023. ISSN 1557-7341. doi: 10.1145/3571730. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3571730. · DOI · Paper page
- Tali Kaufman and Dana Ron. Testing polynomials over general fields. SIAM J. Comput., 36: 779-802, 10 2006. doi: 10.1137/S0097539704445615. · DOI
- Lauro Langosco Di Langosco, Jack Koch, Lee D Sharkey, Jacob Pfau, and David Krueger. Goal misgeneralization in deep reinforcement learning. In Kamalika Chaudhuri, Stefanie Jegelka, Le Song, Csaba Szepesvari, Gang Niu, and Sivan Sabato, editors, Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 12004-12019. PMLR, 17-23 Jul 2022. URL https: //proceedings.mlr.press/v162/langosco22a.html.
- Andreu Mas-Colell, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
- Song Mei and Andrea Montanari. The generalization error of random features regression: Precise asymptotics and the double descent curve. 75(4):667-766. ISSN 1097-0312. doi: 10.1002/cpa.22008. · DOI
- Theodor Misiakiewicz and Andrea Montanari. Six Lectures on Linearized Neural Networks. arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2308.13431, August 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.13431. · DOI
- Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 27730-27744.
- Curran Associates, Inc., 2022. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/ paper/2022/file/b1efde53be364a73914f58805a001731-Paper-Conference.pdf.
- Ali Rahimi and Benjamin Recht. Random features for large-scale kernel machines. In J. Platt, D. Koller, Y. Singer, and S. Roweis, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 20.
- Curran Associates, Inc., 2007. URL https://proceedings.neurips. cc/paper_files/paper/2007/file/013a006f03dbc5392effeb8f18fda755-Paper.pdf.
- Dana Ron. Property testing: A learning theory perspective. Found. Trends Mach. Learn., 1(3): 307-402, 2008. doi: 10.1561/2200000004. URL https://doi.org/10.1561/2200000004. · DOI
- Joseph Sill and Yaser Abu-Mostafa. Monotonicity hints. In M.C. Mozer, M. Jordan, and T. Petsche, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 9. MIT Press, 1996. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/1996/file/ c850371fda6892fbfd1c5a5b457e5777-Paper.pdf.
- Pnar Tfekci and Heysem Kaya. Combined Cycle Power Plant. UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5002N. · DOI
- J.J. Vallon, N. Panjwani, X. Ling, S. Vij, E. Pollom, H.P. Bagshaw, S. Srinivas, J. Lep- pert, M. Bayati, and M.K. Buyyounouski. Clinically consistent prostate cancer out- come prediction models with machine learning. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 114(3, Supplement):e126-e127, 2022. ISSN 0360-3016. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.951. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0360301622016728. ASTRO Annual 2022 Meeting. · DOI
- Vladimir Vovk, Alexander Gammerman, and Glenn Shafer. Algorithmic Learning in a Random World, Second Edition. January 2005. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-06649-8. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2005. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Calibrating Conservatism for Scalable Oversight
Overman, W., & Bayati, M. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.28807
“…tail risks like toxicity (Chen et al., 2025), improving factuality (Cherian et al., 2024), calibrating outputs to satisfy user-desired properties (Overman et al., 2024), mediating between helpfulness and harmless-ness (Overman & Bayati, 2025), and escalating to stronger judges when weaker ones…”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Overman, W., Vallon, J. J., & Bayati, M.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 110702-110722
- ISSN
- 1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2406.18777
- OpenAlex
- W4415795822
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 1.50
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Risk and Portfolio Optimization
- Keywords
- conformal risk control, model characteristics, conformal prediction, risk control
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review