Reward models (RMs) play a crucial role in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), aligning model behavior with human preferences. However, existing benchmarks for reward models show a weak correlation with the performance of optimized policies, suggesting that they fail to accurately assess the true capabilities of RMs. To bridge this gap, we explore several evaluation designs through the lens of reward overoptimization, i.e., a phenomenon that captures both how well the reward model aligns with human preferences and the dynamics of the learning signal it provides to the policy. The results highlight three key findings on how to construct a reliable benchmark: (i) it is important to minimize differences between chosen and rejected responses beyond correctness, (ii) evaluating reward models requires multiple comparisons across a wide range of chosen and rejected responses, and (iii) given that reward models encounter responses with diverse representations, responses should be sourced from a variety of models. However, we also observe that a extremely high correlation with degree of overoptimization leads to comparatively lower correlation with certain downstream performance. Thus, when designing a benchmark, it is desirable to use the degree of overoptimization as a useful tool, rather than the end goal.

To achieve lifelong human-agent interaction, dialogue agents need to constantly memorize perceived information and properly retrieve it for response generation (RG). While prior studies focus on getting rid of outdated memories to improve retrieval quality, we argue that such memories provide rich, important contextual cues for RG (e.g., changes in user behaviors) in long-term conversations. We present THEANINE, a framework for LLM-based lifelong dialogue agents. THEANINE discards memory removal and manages large-scale memories by linking them based on their temporal and cause-effect relation. Enabled by this linking structure, THEANINE augments RG with memory timelines - series of memories representing the evolution or causality of relevant past events. Along with THEANINE, we introduce TeaFarm, a counterfactual-driven evaluation scheme, addressing the limitation of G-Eval and human efforts when assessing agent performance in integrating past memories into RG. A supplementary video for THEANINE and data for TeaFarm are at https://huggingface.co/spaces/ResearcherScholar/Theanine.

Emotional Support Conversation (ESC) is a task aimed at alleviating individuals’ emotional distress through daily conversation. Given its inherent complexity and non-intuitive nature, ESConv dataset incorporates support strategies to facilitate the generation of appropriate responses. Recently, despite the remarkable conversational ability of large language models (LLMs), previous studies have suggested that they often struggle with providing useful emotional support. Hence, this work initially analyzes the results of LLMs on ESConv, revealing challenges in selecting the correct strategy and a notable preference for a specific strategy. Motivated by these, we explore the impact of the inherent preference in LLMs on providing emotional support, and consequently, we observe that exhibiting high preference for specific strategies hinders effective emotional support, aggravating its robustness in predicting the appropriate strategy. Moreover, we conduct a methodological study to offer insights into the necessary approaches for LLMs to serve as proficient emotional supporters. Our findings emphasize that (1) low preference for specific strategies hinders the progress of emotional support, (2) external assistance helps reduce preference bias, and (3) existing LLMs alone cannot become good emotional supporters. These insights suggest promising avenues for future research to enhance the emotional intelligence of LLMs.

Algorithmic reasoning tasks that involve complex logical patterns, such as completing Dyck language, pose challenges for large language models (LLMs), despite their recent success. Prior work has used LLMs to generate programming language and applied external compilers for such tasks. Yet, when on the fly, it is hard to generate an executable code with the correct logic for the solution. Even so, code for one instance cannot be reused for others, although they might require the same logic to solve. We present Think-and-Execute, a novel framework that improves LLMs’ algorithmic reasoning: (1) In Think, we discover task-level logic shared across all instances, and express such logic with pseudocode; (2) In Execute, we tailor the task-level pseudocode to each instance and simulate the execution of it. Think-and-Execute outperforms several strong baselines (including CoT and PoT) in diverse algorithmic reasoning tasks. We manifest the advantage of using task-level pseudocode over generating instance-specific solutions one by one. Also, we show that pseudocode can better improve LMs’ reasoning than natural language (NL) guidance, even though they are trained with NL instructions.

This paper presents Coffee-Gym, a comprehensive RL environment for training models that provide feedback on code editing. Coffee-Gym includes two major components: (1) Coffee, a dataset containing humans’ code edit traces for coding questions and human-written feedback for editing erroneous code; (2) CoffeeEval, a reward function that faithfully reflects the helpfulness of feedback by assessing the performance of the revised code in unit tests. With them, Coffee-Gym addresses the unavailability of high-quality datasets for training feedback models with RL, and provides more accurate rewards than the SOTA reward model (i.e., GPT-4). By applying Coffee-Gym, we elicit feedback models that outperform baselines in enhancing open-source code LLMs’ code editing, making them comparable with closed-source LLMs. We make the dataset and the model checkpoint publicly available in https://huggingface.co/spaces/Coffee-Gym/Project-Coffee-Gym.

Human-like chatbots necessitate the use of commonsense reasoning in order to effectively comprehend and respond to implicit information present within conversations. Achieving such coherence and informativeness in responses, however, is a non-trivial task. Even for large language models (LLMs), the task of identifying and aggregating key evidence within a single hop presents a substantial challenge. This complexity arises because such evidence is scattered across multiple turns in a conversation, thus necessitating integration over multiple hops. Hence, our focus is to facilitate such multi-hop reasoning over a dialogue context, namely dialogue chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. To this end, we propose a knowledge distillation framework that leverages LLMs as unreliable teachers and selectively distills consistent and helpful rationales via alignment filters. We further present DOCTOR, a DialOgue Chain-of-ThOught Reasoner that provides reliable CoT rationales for response generation. We conduct extensive experiments to show that enhancing dialogue agents with high-quality rationales from DOCTOR significantly improves the quality of their responses.