-
Reverse Engineering Human Preferences with Reinforcement Learning
Authors:
Lisa Alazraki,
Tan Yi-Chern,
Jon Ander Campos,
Maximilian Mozes,
Marek Rei,
Max Bartolo
Abstract:
The capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are routinely evaluated by other LLMs trained to predict human preferences. This framework--known as LLM-as-a-judge--is highly scalable and relatively low cost. However, it is also vulnerable to malicious exploitation, as LLM responses can be tuned to overfit the preferences of the judge. Previous work shows that the answers generated by a candidate…
▽ More
The capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are routinely evaluated by other LLMs trained to predict human preferences. This framework--known as LLM-as-a-judge--is highly scalable and relatively low cost. However, it is also vulnerable to malicious exploitation, as LLM responses can be tuned to overfit the preferences of the judge. Previous work shows that the answers generated by a candidate-LLM can be edited post hoc to maximise the score assigned to them by a judge-LLM. In this study, we adopt a different approach and use the signal provided by judge-LLMs as a reward to adversarially tune models that generate text preambles designed to boost downstream performance. We find that frozen LLMs pipelined with these models attain higher LLM-evaluation scores than existing frameworks. Crucially, unlike other frameworks which intervene directly on the model's response, our method is virtually undetectable. We also demonstrate that the effectiveness of the tuned preamble generator transfers when the candidate-LLM and the judge-LLM are replaced with models that are not used during training. These findings raise important questions about the design of more reliable LLM-as-a-judge evaluation settings. They also demonstrate that human preferences can be reverse engineered effectively, by pipelining LLMs to optimise upstream preambles via reinforcement learning--an approach that could find future applications in diverse tasks and domains beyond adversarial attacks.
△ Less
Submitted 21 May, 2025;
originally announced May 2025.
-
Command A: An Enterprise-Ready Large Language Model
Authors:
Team Cohere,
:,
Aakanksha,
Arash Ahmadian,
Marwan Ahmed,
Jay Alammar,
Milad Alizadeh,
Yazeed Alnumay,
Sophia Althammer,
Arkady Arkhangorodsky,
Viraat Aryabumi,
Dennis Aumiller,
Raphaël Avalos,
Zahara Aviv,
Sammie Bae,
Saurabh Baji,
Alexandre Barbet,
Max Bartolo,
Björn Bebensee,
Neeral Beladia,
Walter Beller-Morales,
Alexandre Bérard,
Andrew Berneshawi,
Anna Bialas,
Phil Blunsom
, et al. (205 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
In this report we describe the development of Command A, a powerful large language model purpose-built to excel at real-world enterprise use cases. Command A is an agent-optimised and multilingual-capable model, with support for 23 languages of global business, and a novel hybrid architecture balancing efficiency with top of the range performance. It offers best-in-class Retrieval Augmented Genera…
▽ More
In this report we describe the development of Command A, a powerful large language model purpose-built to excel at real-world enterprise use cases. Command A is an agent-optimised and multilingual-capable model, with support for 23 languages of global business, and a novel hybrid architecture balancing efficiency with top of the range performance. It offers best-in-class Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) capabilities with grounding and tool use to automate sophisticated business processes. These abilities are achieved through a decentralised training approach, including self-refinement algorithms and model merging techniques. We also include results for Command R7B which shares capability and architectural similarities to Command A. Weights for both models have been released for research purposes. This technical report details our original training pipeline and presents an extensive evaluation of our models across a suite of enterprise-relevant tasks and public benchmarks, demonstrating excellent performance and efficiency.
△ Less
Submitted 14 April, 2025; v1 submitted 1 April, 2025;
originally announced April 2025.
-
No Need for Explanations: LLMs can implicitly learn from mistakes in-context
Authors:
Lisa Alazraki,
Maximilian Mozes,
Jon Ander Campos,
Tan Yi-Chern,
Marek Rei,
Max Bartolo
Abstract:
Showing incorrect answers to Large Language Models (LLMs) is a popular strategy to improve their performance in reasoning-intensive tasks. It is widely assumed that, in order to be helpful, the incorrect answers must be accompanied by comprehensive rationales, explicitly detailing where the mistakes are and how to correct them. However, in this work we present a counterintuitive finding: we observ…
▽ More
Showing incorrect answers to Large Language Models (LLMs) is a popular strategy to improve their performance in reasoning-intensive tasks. It is widely assumed that, in order to be helpful, the incorrect answers must be accompanied by comprehensive rationales, explicitly detailing where the mistakes are and how to correct them. However, in this work we present a counterintuitive finding: we observe that LLMs perform better in math reasoning tasks when these rationales are eliminated from the context and models are left to infer on their own what makes an incorrect answer flawed. This approach also substantially outperforms chain-of-thought prompting in our evaluations. These results are consistent across LLMs of different sizes and varying reasoning abilities. To gain an understanding of why LLMs learn from mistakes more effectively without explicit corrective rationales, we perform a thorough analysis, investigating changes in context length and answer diversity between different prompting strategies, and their effect on performance. We also examine evidence of overfitting to the in-context rationales when these are provided, and study the extent to which LLMs are able to autonomously infer high-quality corrective rationales given only incorrect answers as input. We find evidence that, while incorrect answers are more beneficial for LLM learning than additional diverse correct answers, explicit corrective rationales over-constrain the model, thus limiting those benefits.
△ Less
Submitted 21 May, 2025; v1 submitted 12 February, 2025;
originally announced February 2025.
