Alignment of large language models (LLMs) with principles like helpfulness, honesty, and harmlessness typically relies on scalar rewards that obscure which objectives drive the training signal. We introduce QA-LIGN, which decomposes monolithic rewards into interpretable principle-specific evaluations through structured natural language programs. Models learn through a draft, critique, and revise pipeline, where symbolic evaluation against the rubrics provides transparent feedback for both initial and revised responses during GRPO training. Applied to uncensored Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, QA-LIGN reduces attack success rates by up to 68.7% while maintaining a 0.67% false refusal rate, achieving Pareto optimal safety-helpfulness performance and outperforming both DPO and GRPO with state-of-the-art reward models given equivalent training. These results demonstrate that making reward signals interpretable and modular improves alignment effectiveness, suggesting transparency enhances LLM safety.

We introduce thoughts of words (ToW), a novel training-time data-augmentation method for next-word prediction. ToW views next-word prediction as a core reasoning task and injects fine-grained thoughts explaining what the next word should be and how it is related to the previous contexts in pre-training texts. Our formulation addresses two fundamental drawbacks of existing next-word prediction learning schemes: they induce factual hallucination and are inefficient for models to learn the implicit reasoning processes in raw texts. While there are many ways to acquire such thoughts of words, we explore the first step of acquiring ToW annotations through distilling from larger models. After continual pre-training with only 70K ToW annotations, we effectively improve models’ reasoning performances by 7% to 9% on average and reduce model hallucination by up to 10%. At the same time, ToW is entirely agnostic to tasks and applications, introducing no additional biases on labels or semantics.

Humans regularly engage in analogical thinking, relating personal experiences to current situations (X is analogous to Y because of Z). Analogical thinking allows humans to solve problems in creative ways, grasp difficult concepts, and articulate ideas more effectively. Can language models (LMs) do the same? To answer this question, we propose AnaloBench, a benchmark to determine analogical reasoning ability in LMs. Our benchmarking approach focuses on aspects of this ability that are common among humans: (i) recalling related experiences from a large amount of information, and (ii) applying analogical reasoning to complex and lengthy scenarios. We collect a set of 340 high quality, human written analogies for use in our benchmark, which constitutes the largest such collection to date. We then test a broad collection of models consisting of 12 open source and 3 proprietary in various sizes and architectures. As in prior results, scaling up LMs results in some performance boosts. Surprisingly, scale offers minimal gains when, (i) analogies involve lengthy scenarios, or (ii) recalling relevant scenarios from a large pool of information, a process analogous to finding a needle in a haystack. We hope these observations encourage further research in this field.