Pith. sign in

REVIEW 11 cited by

Shepherd: A Critic for Language Model Generation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2308.04592 v1 pith:55IP5IEN submitted 2023-08-08 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords shepherdmodelslanguagemodelaveragecapabilitieschatgptevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As large language models improve, there is increasing interest in techniques that leverage these models' capabilities to refine their own outputs. In this work, we introduce Shepherd, a language model specifically tuned to critique responses and suggest refinements, extending beyond the capabilities of an untuned model to identify diverse errors and provide suggestions to remedy them. At the core of our approach is a high quality feedback dataset, which we curate from community feedback and human annotations. Even though Shepherd is small (7B parameters), its critiques are either equivalent or preferred to those from established models including ChatGPT. Using GPT-4 for evaluation, Shepherd reaches an average win-rate of 53-87% compared to competitive alternatives. In human evaluation, Shepherd strictly outperforms other models and on average closely ties with ChatGPT.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 11 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. User-Assistant Bias in LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    LLMs show strong user bias in role-tagged contexts that is amplified by preference alignment and can be reduced or controlled through targeted fine-tuning and DPO.

  2. TeamTR: Trust-Region Fine-Tuning for Multi-Agent LLM Coordination

    cs.LG 2026-05 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Stale-occupancy sequential fine-tuning of multi-agent LLMs incurs an O(n²) certificate penalty; TeamTR resamples under intermediate occupancy and enforces token-level trust regions to restore O(n) scaling and stable gains.

  3. TeamTR: Trust-Region Fine-Tuning for Multi-Agent LLM Coordination

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    TeamTR is a trust-region framework for multi-agent LLM fine-tuning that resamples trajectories after each update to convert quadratic compounding occupancy shift into linear scaling and yields per-update improvement l...

  4. Understanding Human Limits in Pattern Recognition: A Computational Model of Sequential Reasoning in Rock, Paper, Scissors

    q-bio.NC 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An LLM agent reproduces human rock-paper-scissors pattern learning, and interventions suggest that hypothesis generation, not evaluation, is the main cognitive bottleneck.

  5. To trust or not to trust: Attention-based Trust Management for LLM Multi-Agent Systems

    cs.CR 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Introduces six-dimension trustworthiness definition and attention-based A-Trust score with a TMS to improve LLM-MAS robustness against malicious or unreliable messages.

  6. HuatuoGPT-o1, Towards Medical Complex Reasoning with LLMs

    cs.CL 2024-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    HuatuoGPT-o1 achieves superior medical complex reasoning by using a verifier to curate reasoning trajectories for fine-tuning and then applying RL with verifier-based rewards.

  7. Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet

    cs.CL 2023-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs cannot reliably self-correct reasoning mistakes using only their internal capabilities and often degrade in performance without external feedback.

  8. Meta-Learned Reward Shaping for Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback

    cs.LG 2026-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Training a small multi-task reward-shaping network and adding it to the RLHF reward is claimed to improve LLaMA-3-8B alignment across four benchmarks, but the supporting theory is not established.

  9. A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge

    cs.CL 2024-11 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey on LLM-as-a-Judge that reviews reliability strategies, proposes evaluation methods, and introduces a novel benchmark for assessing such systems.

  10. LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods

    cs.CL 2024-12 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.

  11. Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback

    cs.LG 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    The book introduces the origins, mathematical setup, and optimization stages of RLHF including reward modeling, reinforcement learning, rejection sampling, and direct alignment algorithms.

Pith tools