Beyond Numeric Awards: In-Context Dueling Bandits with LLM Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01887v3
• Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2025 13:49:59 GMT
• Title: Beyond Numeric Awards: In-Context Dueling Bandits with LLM Agents
• Authors: Fanzeng Xia, Hao Liu, Yisong Yue, Tongxin Li,
• Abstract summary: This paper is the first to investigate Large Language Models (LLMs) as in-context decision-makers under the problem of Dueling Bandits (DB)<n>We compare GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, GPT-4 Turbo, Llama 3.1, and o1-Preview against nine well-established DB algorithms.<n>We show that our top-performing LLM, GPT-4 Turbo, has the zero-shot relative decision-making ability to achieve surprisingly low weak regret.
• Score: 25.825941077332182
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In-context reinforcement learning (ICRL) is a frontier paradigm for solving reinforcement learning problems in the foundation model era. While ICRL capabilities have been demonstrated in transformers through task-specific training, the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) out-of-the-box remains largely unexplored. Recent findings highlight that LLMs often face challenges when dealing with numerical contexts, and limited attention has been paid to evaluating their performance through preference feedback generated by the environment. This paper is the first to investigate LLMs as in-context decision-makers under the problem of Dueling Bandits (DB), a stateless preference-based reinforcement learning setting that extends the classic Multi-Armed Bandit (MAB) model by querying for preference feedback. We compare GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, GPT-4 Turbo, Llama 3.1, and o1-Preview against nine well-established DB algorithms. Our results reveal that our top-performing LLM, GPT-4 Turbo, has the zero-shot relative decision-making ability to achieve surprisingly low weak regret across all the DB environment instances by quickly including the best arm in duels. However, an optimality gap exists between LLMs and classic DB algorithms in terms of strong regret. LLMs struggle to converge and consistently exploit even when explicitly prompted to do so, and are sensitive to prompt variations. To bridge this gap, we propose an agentic flow framework: LLM with Enhanced Algorithmic Dueling (LEAD), which integrates off-the-shelf DB algorithms with LLM agents through fine-grained adaptive interplay. We show that LEAD has theoretical guarantees inherited from classic DB algorithms on both weak and strong regret. We validate its efficacy and robustness even with noisy and adversarial prompts. The design of our framework sheds light on how to enhance the trustworthiness of LLMs used for in-context decision-making.

Related papers

• R1-Searcher: Incentivizing the Search Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning [87.30285670315334]
  textbfR1-Searcher is a novel two-stage outcome-based RL approach designed to enhance the search capabilities of Large Language Models. Our framework relies exclusively on RL, without requiring process rewards or distillation for a cold start. Our experiments demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms previous strong RAG methods, even when compared to the closed-source GPT-4o-mini.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T17:14:44Z)
• U-NIAH: Unified RAG and LLM Evaluation for Long Context Needle-In-A-Haystack [9.760456105567078]
  This paper introduces U-NIAH, a unified framework that systematically compares Large Language Models (LLMs) and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Our framework incorporates multi-needle, long-needle, and needle-in-needle configurations, along with different retrieval settings. Our findings show that RAG significantly enhances smaller LLMs by mitigating the "lost-in-the-middle" effect and improving robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-01T05:05:24Z)
• LLM-Lasso: A Robust Framework for Domain-Informed Feature Selection and Regularization [59.75242204923353]
  We introduce LLM-Lasso, a framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to guide feature selection in Lasso regression. LLMs generate penalty factors for each feature, which are converted into weights for the Lasso penalty using a simple, tunable model. Features identified as more relevant by the LLM receive lower penalties, increasing their likelihood of being retained in the final model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-15T02:55:22Z)
• Large Language Model-Enhanced Multi-Armed Bandits [43.34246396804588]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been adopted to solve sequential decision-making tasks such as multi-armed bandits (MAB) We propose an alternative approach which combines the strengths of classical MAB and LLMs. We conduct empirical evaluations using both synthetic MAB tasks and experiments designed using real-world text datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T07:19:05Z)
• Eliciting In-context Retrieval and Reasoning for Long-context Large Language Models [27.217391392240113]
  Long-context language models (LCLMs) can process entire knowledge bases and perform retrieval and reasoning directly. Existing benchmarks like LOFT often overestimate LCLM performance by providing overly simplified contexts. We introduce ICR2, a benchmark that evaluates LCLMs in more realistic scenarios by including confounding passages retrieved with strong retrievers. We then propose three methods to enhance LCLM performance: (1) retrieve-then-generate fine-tuning, (2) retrieval-attention-probing, which uses attention heads to filter and de-noise long contexts during decoding, and (3) joint retrieval head training alongside the generation head.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T16:38:33Z)
• LLM2: Let Large Language Models Harness System 2 Reasoning [65.89293674479907]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited impressive capabilities across a myriad of tasks, yet they occasionally yield undesirable outputs. We introduce LLM2, a novel framework that combines an LLM with a process-based verifier. LLMs2 is responsible for generating plausible candidates, while the verifier provides timely process-based feedback to distinguish desirable and undesirable outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-29T06:32:36Z)
• LLM Self-Correction with DeCRIM: Decompose, Critique, and Refine for Enhanced Following of Instructions with Multiple Constraints [86.59857711385833]
  We introduce RealInstruct, the first benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to follow real-world multi-constrained instructions. To address the performance gap between open-source and proprietary models, we propose the Decompose, Critique and Refine (DeCRIM) self-correction pipeline. Our results show that DeCRIM improves Mistral's performance by 7.3% on RealInstruct and 8.0% on IFEval even with weak feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T01:25:10Z)
• EVOLvE: Evaluating and Optimizing LLMs For Exploration [76.66831821738927]
  Large language models (LLMs) remain under-studied in scenarios requiring optimal decision-making under uncertainty. We measure LLMs' (in)ability to make optimal decisions in bandits, a state-less reinforcement learning setting relevant to many applications. Motivated by the existence of optimal exploration algorithms, we propose efficient ways to integrate this algorithmic knowledge into LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T17:54:03Z)
• Control Large Language Models via Divide and Conquer [94.48784966256463]
  This paper investigates controllable generation for large language models (LLMs) with prompt-based control, focusing on Lexically Constrained Generation (LCG) We evaluate the performance of LLMs on satisfying lexical constraints with prompt-based control, as well as their efficacy in downstream applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T21:20:06Z)
• Applying RLAIF for Code Generation with API-usage in Lightweight LLMs [15.366324461797582]
  Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) has demonstrated significant potential across various domains. This paper introduces an RLAIF framework for improving the code generation abilities of lightweight (1B parameters) LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T17:16:03Z)
• UBENCH: Benchmarking Uncertainty in Large Language Models with Multiple Choice Questions [10.28688988951815]
  UBENCH is a benchmark for evaluating large language models. It includes 3,978 multiple-choice questions covering knowledge, language, understanding, and reasoning abilities. We also evaluate the reliability of 15 popular LLMs, finding GLM4 to be the most outstanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T16:50:38Z)
• Improve Temporal Awareness of LLMs for Sequential Recommendation [61.723928508200196]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive zero-shot abilities in solving a wide range of general-purpose tasks. LLMs fall short in recognizing and utilizing temporal information, rendering poor performance in tasks that require an understanding of sequential data. We propose three prompting strategies to exploit temporal information within historical interactions for LLM-based sequential recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-05T00:21:26Z)
• Can large language models explore in-context? [87.49311128190143]
  We deploy Large Language Models as agents in simple multi-armed bandit environments. We find that the models do not robustly engage in exploration without substantial interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T17:50:43Z)
• Enabling Weak LLMs to Judge Response Reliability via Meta Ranking [38.63721941742435]
  We propose a novel cross-query-comparison-based method called $textitMeta Ranking$ (MR) MR assesses reliability by pairwisely ranking the target query-response pair with multiple reference query-response pairs. We show that MR can enhance strong LLMs' performance in two practical applications: model cascading and instruction tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T13:57:55Z)
• NPHardEval: Dynamic Benchmark on Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models via Complexity Classes [32.154637177467684]
  NPHardEval is designed to evaluate the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a broad spectrum of 900 questions. It is meticulously chosen to represent a wide range of complexity class below the NP-hard complexity class. It is designed with a dynamic update mechanism, where the datapoints are refreshed on a monthly basis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T18:07:44Z)
• Sentiment Analysis through LLM Negotiations [58.67939611291001]
  A standard paradigm for sentiment analysis is to rely on a singular LLM and makes the decision in a single round. This paper introduces a multi-LLM negotiation framework for sentiment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:35:29Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.