mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Aligning Language Models with Observational Data: Opportunities and Risks from a Causal Perspective

arXiv 2506.00152 ↗First posted 30 May 2025cs.LG econ.EM stat.MLcited by 1

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models are being widely used across industries to generate text that contributes directly to key performance metrics, such as medication adherence in patient messaging and conversion rates in content generation. Pretrained models, however, often fall short when it comes to aligning with human preferences or optimizing for business objectives. As a result, fine-tuning with good-quality labeled data is essential to guide models to generate content that achieves better results. Controlled experiments, like A/B tests, can provide such data, but they are often expensive and come with significant engineering, logistical, and ethical challenges. Meanwhile, companies have access to a vast amount of historical (observational) data that remains underutilized. In this work, we study the challenges and opportunities of fine-tuning LLMs using observational data. We show that while observational outcomes can provide valuable supervision, directly fine-tuning models on such data can lead them to learn spurious correlations. We present empirical evidence of this issue using various real-world datasets and propose DeconfoundLM, a method that explicitly removes the effect of known confounders from reward signals. In simulation experiments, DeconfoundLM more accurately recovers causal relationships and mitigates failure modes of methods that assume counterfactual invariance, achieving over 16% higher objective score than ODIN and other baselines, when entangled confounding is present. Please refer to the project page for code and related resources.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 23 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2025.

Builds on

23 of 47 references.

References · 23

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  3. 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,150
  4. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
  5. 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
  6. 2022Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimizationcited by 1,095
  7. 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,055
  8. 2023Secrets of RLHF in Large Language Models Part I: PPOcited by 229
  9. 2024Sycophancy to Subterfuge: Investigating Reward-Tampering in Large Language Modelscited by 178
  10. 2024Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization in Direct Alignment Algorithmscited by 143
  11. 2024ODIN: Disentangled Reward Mitigates Hacking in RLHFcited by 136
  12. 2024Unpacking DPO and PPO: Disentangling Best Practices for Learning from Preference Feedbackcited by 107
11 more
  1. 2019Deep Generalized Method of Moments for Instrumental Variable Analysiscited by 88
  2. 2020Minimax Estimation of Conditional Moment Modelscited by 83
  3. 2022Causal Confusion and Reward Misidentification in Preference-Based Reward Learningcited by 53
  4. 2025Beyond Reward Hacking: Causal Rewards for Large Language Model Alignmentcited by 42
  5. 2024LOLA: LLM-Assisted Online Learning Algorithm for Content Experimentscited by 18
  6. 2023A/B Testing: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 16
  7. 2014Instrumental Variables: An Econometrician's Perspectivecited by 15
  8. 2022Instrumental Variables in Causal Inference and Machine Learning: A Surveycited by 10
  9. 2023The Importance of Human-Labeled Data in the Era of LLMscited by 8
  10. 2018Test & Roll: Profit-Maximizing A/B Testscited by 5
  11. 2024Can AI Understand Our Universe? Test of Fine-Tuning GPT by Astrophysical Datacited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Can Finetuing LLMs on Small Human Samples Increase Heterogeneity, Alignment, and Belief-Action Coherence?
  2. 2026Causal methods for LLM development and evaluation
  3. 2024Large Language Models for Market Research: A Data-augmentation Approach
  4. 2023The Challenge of Using LLMs to Simulate Human Behavior: A Causal Inference Perspective
  5. 2025Can LLMs Leverage Observational Data? Towards Data-Driven Causal Discovery with LLMs
  6. 2025Predicting Effects, Missing Distributions: Evaluating LLMs as Human Behavior Simulators in Operations Management
  7. 2025Ice Cream Doesn't Cause Drowning: Benchmarking LLMs Against Statistical Pitfalls in Causal Inference
  8. 2024Under the Surface: Tracking the Artifactuality of LLM-Generated Data