Frictional Agent Alignment Framework: Slow Down and Don't Break Things

Abhijnan Nath; Andrei Bachinin; Carine Graff; Nikhil Krishnaswamy

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Frictional Agent Alignment Framework: Slow Down and Don't Break Things

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Aligning an LLM to generate 'friction' interventions in collaborative dialogue reduces to a single supervised squared loss over preference pairs, and the resulting agents beat DPO, IPO, and PPO on three benchmarks and on…

desk verdict The empirical framing of 'friction' alignment is useful, but the central analytical-solution derivation relies on a false conditional-probability identity, so the paper's main theoretical claim does not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19428 v1 pith:DPVWJVHM submitted 2025-05-26 cs.CL

Abhijnan Nath , Carine Graff , Andrei Bachinin , Nikhil Krishnaswamy This is my paper

classification cs.CL

keywords FAAFpreferencealignmentfrictioninterventionfrictivestatecollaborativedialoguetwo-playerpolicyoptimizationL2regressionlossout-of-distributiongeneralization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that aligning a language model to generate 'friction' — utterances that deliberately slow a collaboration down so participants re-examine their assumptions — reduces to a single supervised squared loss over ordinary preference pairs. The authors define a two-player minimax objective in which one policy proposes states of belief misalignment and the other crafts collaborator-preferred interventions, and they claim this game has a closed-form solution: the whole two-policy game collapses into one loss, $L = E[(1 - \beta(\Delta R + \Delta R'))^2]$, trained with a single model. On three collaborative-dialogue benchmark settings the resulting agents beat DPO, IPO, and PPO at producing friction judged more relevant, impactful, and thought-provoking, and they keep that edge on genuine human dialogue transcripts never seen in training. The paper is explicit that this is an alignment method for state-conditioned friction generation — not a general chatbot alignment — and that live human-user studies remain future work.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the two-player minimax objective $J^*_{FAAF} = \min_{\pi_\phi} \max_{\pi_f} E[P(f \succ \phi | x) - \beta D_{KL}(\pi_f \| \pi_{ref} | \phi, x) + \beta D_{KL}(\pi_\phi \| \pi_{ref} | x)]$, in which $\phi$ is a 'frictive state' — a natural-language rendering of the belief conflict in the dialogue — and $f$ is a 'friction intervention' that prompts reflection without asserting either side of the conflict. The argument moves in three steps: the inner maximization over $\pi_f$ is solved in closed form as the Boltzmann-style policy $\pi^*_f(f | \phi, x) \propto \pi_{ref}(f | \phi, x) \exp(\beta^{-1} P(f \succ \phi | x))$; a Lagrangian minimization over $\pi_\phi$ then expresses the preference probability $P(f \succ \phi | x)$ in terms of both optimal policies, using the sequential-choice decomposition $\pi(\phi | \phi, x) = \pi(\phi | x)/\pi(f | x)$ and the self-preference identity $P(\phi \succ \phi | x) = 1/2$; and finally a single trainable policy $\pi_\theta$ is substituted for both optimal policies, turning the expression into the $\ell^2$ regression loss $L = E[(1 - \beta(\Delta R + \Delta R'))^2]$, where $\Delta R$ and $\Delta R'$ are the frictive-state-conditioned and unconditioned log-ratio reward differences. The decomposition lemma is what converts a two-policy game into one supervised objective, and the squared regression is what makes it trainable from the same $(x, \phi, f_w, f_l)$ tuples any preference method consumes.

What would settle it

Estimate all four quantities in the identity $\pi(\phi|\phi, x) = \pi(\phi|x)/\pi(f|x)$ from a trained FAAF policy's next-token probabilities on held-out $(x, \phi, f)$ tuples: if the left-hand side matches $\pi(\phi|x)$ rather than the ratio, the lemma that carries the analytical reduction is false and the training loss is not the closed-form solution claimed. A companion check would re-derive the loss with the decomposition replaced by the textbook conditional-probability definition and compare win rates on the three benchmarks — if the identity is doing the work, the two models should diverge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Frictional Agent Alignment Framework (FAAF) solves the problem of aligning a language model to make 'friction interventions' in collaborative dialogue. Its two-player objective pits a frictive-state policy $\pi_\phi$, which samples states of belief misalignment from the dialogue context, against an intervention policy $\pi_f$, which generates collaborator-preferred responses conditioned on that state; the outer minimization keeps $\pi_\phi$ close to a reference model while the inner maximization pulls $\pi_f$ toward more-preferred interventions. The authors claim this minimax game has an analytical solution: a Lagrangian derivation, fed by a sequential-choice decomposition, expresses the relative preference between any two interventions in terms of both optimal policies, and regressing that expression onto observed pairwise preference labels yields the single-policy supervised loss $L = E[(1 - \beta(\Delta R + \Delta R'))^2]$ with no partition-function dependence. They further claim this loss has a unique optimum in policy space and trains a single LLM that outperforms DPO, IPO, and PPO in generating concise, interpretable friction, with the margin holding on out-of-distribution human dialogue data.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation's load-bearing premise is that a policy's probability of staying with the current frictive state, given that state, equals the ratio of its probability on that state to its probability on an intervention — the identity $\pi(\phi|\phi, x) = \pi(\phi|x)/\pi(f|x)$ — and if that ratio is wrong, the rewrite that produces the single-policy loss collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Friction-agent training reduces to one supervised squared loss on ordinary preference pairs, needing no reward model, no sampling of intermediate policies, and no partition-function estimates.
That loss can be optimized by a single LLM policy filling both the frictive-state and intervention roles, with a unique optimum in policy space under the stated support condition.
Models trained this way beat DPO, IPO, and PPO — and the SFT reference — at generating interventions judged more relevant, impactful, specific, and thought-provoking across three benchmark settings.
The same check works out-of-distribution: FAAF trained on simulated, grammatical dialogues keeps its edge on the original, disfluent human transcripts of the Weights Task, where competing methods degrade.
Both conditioning signals matter: ablations that remove the frictive-state-conditioned reward term or the unconditioned term underperform the full loss, and higher KL-strength $\beta$ (10) stabilizes training and sharpens preference margins.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The identity in Eq. 40 is the one place the mathematics can be checked directly: computing both sides from a trained policy's token probabilities on held-out dialogues would settle whether the closed-form reduction is genuine, independent of any benchmark comparison.
Because the frictive state is just text, the same $\ell^2$ objective should transfer to any state-conditioned intervention task with preference data — tutoring prompts that make a student re-check a step, or clinical-collaboration agents that surface a disputed finding — though the paper only tests dialogue.
The decisive test the paper does not run is live: whether interventions trained this way actually change a collaborator's next action or final outcome in real time, which the authors explicitly leave to human user studies.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Hi [Colleague],

Quick take on FAAF: the two-term loss is new and the experiments are honestly built, but the theory in Appendix C is wrong, and without it the headline contribution—an analytical solution to a two-player objective—is not established.

What I found useful: the idea of conditioning alignment on an explicit "frictive state" and generating interventions that prompt reflection is a genuine new task orientation. The data construction is careful: they build two preference datasets, with GPT-4o as generator/judge but also a human validation slice on 100 pairs showing decent agreement (κ ~0.58–0.92). The ablations splitting ΔR and ΔR′ are a sensible way to test the components, and they ship code and data.

The soft spots are serious. Lemma 3's "sequential choice decomposition" (Eq. 40) asserts π(φ|φ,x) = π(φ|x)/π(f|x). Under their own stated assumptions of choice independence and binary normalization, the algebra gives π(φ|φ,x) = π(φ|x). The π(f|x) in the denominator appears with no derivation. That identity is then used to rewrite the preference probability in terms of π*_φ and π_ref, and it is exactly what converts Eq. 27 into Eq. 30 and eventually the empirical loss (Eq. 38). If Lemma 3 is false, the derived loss is not the optimum of Eq. 2; it is an ad hoc combination of a DPO-style margin and an IPO-style regression. That could still work as a heuristic, but the paper's central claim—"analytical solution" with a uniqueness guarantee—collapses. Theorem 2's uniqueness proof also leans on an unproved strict-convexity assertion, so that does not rescue it.

The empirical case is weaker than the tables suggest. The main evaluation is GPT-4o judging outputs from models trained on GPT-4o preferences, so there is real circularity. The OOD advantage over DPO on Original WTD is within reported error bars (90.9 vs 89.0 ±3.1), so the claimed robustness is not solid. The human validation covers only a small sample (100 pairs) and does not extend to the final models.

Who is this for? Someone interested in collaborative dialogue alignment and the "friction" concept. They should read the empirical sections, but not rely on the theoretical derivation. The paper deserves a serious referee—the framing and data are enough to warrant engagement—but as written it should be rejected or sent back for major revision, because the load-bearing theoretical claim is invalid. I would not cite the analytical solution.

Recommendation: send back for major revision with a request to either fix Lemma 3 or clearly reframe Eq. 38 as a heuristic rather than a derived optimum.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Frictional Agent Alignment Framework (FAAF), a two-player minimax objective over a frictive-state policy and a friction-intervention policy, and claims that this objective admits an analytical solution that reduces to a single-policy supervised loss, L = E[(1 - beta(Delta R + Delta R'))^2] (Eq. 38). The authors train Llama-3-8B with this loss on GPT-4o-generated preference data from DeliData and two versions of the Weights Task Dataset, and report win-rate improvements over DPO, IPO, PPO, and SFT baselines, including on an out-of-distribution evaluation. The paper also contributes operational definitions of friction and frictive states, detailed data-generation pipelines, and public code and data.

Significance. If the central derivation were valid, the paper would offer a practically valuable reduction of a two-player alignment objective to a simple supervised regression, with a claimed uniqueness guarantee and gains on collaborative-domain preference alignment. The empirical setting is original and the authors provide substantial resources: they release code and data, include human validation of a subset of the generated preference pairs, report OOD evaluation on organic human dialogue, and ablate the contributions of the two reward terms. However, the theoretical derivation is load-bearing for the paper's main claim, and it is not valid as written; the final loss is best characterized as a reasonable heuristic, and the empirical evaluation is partially circular because GPT-4o serves as both data generator and judge.

major comments (4)

[Appendix C, Lemma 3 (Eq. 40)] The sequential choice decomposition pi(phi|phi,x) = pi(phi|x)/pi(f|x) is not derived from the stated assumptions. The proof posits choice independence, P_pi(phi,phi|x) = P_pi(phi|x)^2, and binary normalization P_pi(phi|x)+P_pi(f|x)=1. Combining these with the definition of conditional probability gives pi(phi|phi,x) = P_pi(phi,phi|x)/P_pi(phi|x) = P_pi(phi|x), not the asserted ratio. The asserted ratio can even exceed 1 when pi(f|x) < pi(phi|x), so it is not generally a valid conditional probability. This identity is used in Eqs. (28)-(29) to rewrite the log-ratio terms in Eq. (27), and those replacements are what produce Eq. (30) and ultimately the empirical loss in Eq. (38). Because Lemma 3 is false, the analytical-solution claim connecting Eq. (2) to Eq. (38) is not established.
[Appendix C, Theorem 2] The uniqueness proof is not valid. The proof asserts strict convexity of the FAAF loss in policy space 'as a consequence' of examining logits, but the squared loss in Eq. (38) is a convex function of the logit differences, not a strictly convex function of the policy parameters; the softmax parametrization is also not convex. The loss has directions in which the logit differences Delta R + Delta R' are unchanged, so the strict inequality used to contradict the existence of two distinct global minima is unsupported. The uniqueness guarantee is therefore not proven.
[Appendix C, Lemma 6 and Eqs. (28)-(29)] Lemma 6 states an expectation equality, E[pi*_f(phi|x)/pi*_f(f|x)] = E[pi*_phi(phi|x)/pi*_phi(f|x)], but the derivation of Eq. (28) and Eq. (29) applies the lemma as if it provided pointwise logarithmic identities log pi*_f(phi|phi,x) = log pi*_phi(phi|x) - log pi*_phi(f|x). An equality of expectations does not justify pointwise replacement inside the expectation of the loss. Moreover, the proof of Lemma 6 relies on the approximation E[pi*_f(f|phi,x)] ~ E[pi_ref(f|phi,x)] in Eq. (49), which is introduced as a consequence of the KL constraint but then treated as an exact equality. The KL divergence bound does not imply equality of the conditional action probabilities under the sampled joint distribution, so the lemma is not proven.
[Section 5 and Table 1] The empirical claim that FAAF 'consistently produces output that is more relevant, impactful, and thought-provoking than competing methods' rests on an evaluation in which GPT-4o generated the preference labels and also served as the LLM judge. The statement in Section 5 that preference-model evaluation 'mitigates lingering bias toward mu' because the judge compares two outputs does not remove the concern that the judge and the data-generating distribution share systematic stylistic preferences. The human validation reported in Section 4.2 covers only pairwise quality of the generated interventions, not head-to-head FAAF-versus-baseline win rates. A human head-to-head evaluation, or at least an independent judge that was not used to construct the training labels, is needed to support the comparative empirical claim.

minor comments (4)

[Algorithm 1, line 5] The reported gradient update, grad_theta L = E[-2 beta delta grad_theta log(Delta R * Delta R')] with delta = 1 - beta(log Delta R + log Delta R'), does not match the derivative of the loss in Eq. (38); the derivative should involve grad_theta(Delta R + Delta R'), not the gradient of a log-product, and delta should not contain logarithms. This should be corrected or clarified.
[Section 6 and Limitations] There are several typos, including 'the the LLM-judge' in Section 6, 'defintion' in the Limitations section, and 'Win rates of of FAAF variants' in the caption of Table 2.
[Appendix C, Theorem 2 proof] The proof contains a repeated term, writing hat L(pi_A) = hat L(pi_A) = 0, which appears to be a typo for hat L(pi_A) = hat L(pi_B) = 0; this should be corrected.
[Section 4.3 and Appendix D.6] The statement that without the Delta R term the FAAF loss is 'structurally similar' to IPO and differs only by a constant scaling beta is imprecise: the beta appears inside the squared term in Eq. (38), which changes the loss landscape rather than merely scaling it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FAAF's supervised loss is trained on external preference labels, and the headline claims do not reduce to fitted inputs or to the authors' prior work.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain (Eq. 2 -> Eq. 8 -> Lagrangian optimum Eq. 22 -> Eq. 24-27 -> Eq. 34 -> empirical loss Eq. 38) uses preference labels (fw, fl) only as external training targets; the final loss is an l2 regression on those observed labels and is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The OOD evaluation on Original WTD uses data not used for training, and a human pairwise validation (Cohen's kappa = 0.92 on DeliData, 0.58 on WTD) provides some independent check of the GPT-4o-generated labels. The self-citation to Pustejovsky and Krishnaswamy (2025) is only a framing sentence ('FAAF represents an instance of... FPO') and is not load-bearing for the derivation or the uniqueness theorem. The overlap between GPT-4o as sampling distribution mu and as LLM judge is an evaluation-independence concern, but it is not a by-construction equivalence between the derivation's inputs and outputs, and the paper explicitly acknowledges residual bias risk in its Limitations section. The main threat to the analytical-solution claim is mathematical, not circular: Lemma 3's Eq. 40 asserts pi(phi|phi,x) = pi(phi|x)/pi(f|x), whereas the proof's own conditional-probability and independence assumptions yield pi(phi|phi,x) = pi(phi|x), and Lemma 6 relies on an unproved approximation (Eq. 49) and p(phi > f|x) = 0. Those flaws invalidate the derivation if uncorrected, but they are correctness risks rather than cases where a result is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central derivation assumes that a natural-language frictive state is a faithful state representation, that a binary choice decomposition holds for policies, and that GPT-4o-generated preference labels and judge scores are trustworthy. The most consequential axioms are the paper-specific ones in Lemma 3 and Lemma 6, because the empirical loss is built directly from them.

free parameters (2)

beta = 10
KL-regularization strength; chosen after ablation over {10, 5, 1, 0.01} and used in all reported results.
context window h = 15 (DeliData), 10 (WTD)
Number of previous utterances given to GPT-4o for frictive-state extraction; affects the generated dataset and policy behavior.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption A natural-language description of a frictive state is a sufficient conditioning signal for generating useful friction interventions.
The whole pipeline represents belief misalignment as plain text produced by GPT-4o; used throughout Sec. 4.2 and the prompts in Appendix D.
ad hoc to paper Choice independence and binary symmetry: Ppi(phi,phi|x) = Ppi(phi|x)^2 and Ppi(phi|x) + Ppi(f|x) = 1.
Assumed inside Lemma 3 to obtain the sequential choice decomposition used in the loss derivation.
domain assumption For labeled preference pairs, p(f > phi|x) = 1 and p(phi > f|x) = 0.
Used to convert preference probabilities into the regression target 1 in Eq. 36-38 and in Lemma 6.
standard math KL-regularized policies have the Boltzmann form pi proportional to pi_ref exp(beta^-1 reward).
Standard maximum-entropy / KL-constrained policy result, invoked in Eq. 8.
ad hoc to paper Under expectation, E[pi*_f(f|phi,x)] is approximately E[pi_ref(f|phi,x)].
Used in Lemma 6 to equate policy ratios; it is an approximation stated as part of the proof, not derived.
domain assumption GPT-4o judgments on seven friction dimensions are valid proxies for human judgments.
The reported win rates rely on this; human validation found high agreement on pairwise winner but near-zero agreement on the individual dimensions.

invented entities (1)

Frictive state phi
purpose: Textual representation of belief misalignment used as extra conditioning for the intervention policy and as the object the frictive-state policy generates.
No formal common-ground tracker validates phi; the paper leaves this to future work (Sec. 7, Limitations). It is grounded only in GPT-4o-generated text and annotator judgments on interventions, not on the state itself.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Frictional Agent Alignment Framework: Slow Down and Don't Break Things." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DPVWJVHM

@misc{pith2026250519428,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Frictional Agent Alignment Framework: Slow Down and Don't Break Things},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DPVWJVHM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19428}
}

read the original abstract

AI support of collaborative interactions entails mediating potential misalignment between interlocutor beliefs. Common preference alignment methods like DPO excel in static settings, but struggle in dynamic collaborative tasks where the explicit signals of interlocutor beliefs are sparse and skewed. We propose the Frictional Agent Alignment Framework (FAAF), to generate precise, context-aware "friction" that prompts for deliberation and re-examination of existing evidence. FAAF's two-player objective decouples from data skew: a frictive-state policy identifies belief misalignments, while an intervention policy crafts collaborator-preferred responses. We derive an analytical solution to this objective, enabling training a single policy via a simple supervised loss. Experiments on three benchmarks show FAAF outperforms competitors in producing concise, interpretable friction and in OOD generalization. By aligning LLMs to act as adaptive "thought partners" -- not passive responders -- FAAF advances scalable, dynamic human-AI collaboration. Our code and data can be found at https://github.com/csu-signal/FAAF_ACL.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19428 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FAAF conditions responses on both the dialogue context x and representation of the "frictive" (belief) state ϕ, to generate outputs that prompt for reflection, deliberation, and verification of evidence. "Friction" in this sense is something that LLMs struggle with. To prompt an interlocutor to reflect upon their assumptions requires that one have an approximate understanding of what those assumptions are and ent… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** DeliData (Karadzhov et al., 2023) Friction Generation Prompt. We use GPT-4o as our sampling distribution µ and prompt it to simultaneously generate frictive states and friction interventions. For diversity, we use the default temperature of 1. This process implicitly provides us with preference rankings between intervention, via the reward scores. See Sec. 3 for definitions of frictive states and friction interventi… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Weights Task dataset (Khebour et al., 2024b) Friction Generation Prompt. We use GPT-4o as our sampling distribution µ and prompt it to simultaneously generate frictive states and friction interventions. For diversity, we use the default temperature of 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: “Simulated” Weights Task dataset (WTD Simulated) Friction Generation Prompt.To ground these friction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Plots showing distributional differences be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Linguistic pattern differences between WTD original (speech-to-text transcripts) and simulated (GPT-4o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of average tie counts of baselines against SFT model over two runs across our 7 distinct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Ablation study of FAAF’s β hyperparameter (β ∈ {10, 5, 1, 0.01}) during training on the Simulated WTD data (top half) and DeliData datasets (bottom half) across 2k and 1k training steps respectively. Higher β values (e.g., β = 10) show better implicit reward estimation…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Evaluation prompt used for friction intervention assessments in an LLM-as-a-judge format. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

Participants can only weigh two blocks at a time

work page
[2]

Modulating language model experiences through frictions. CoRR. Kenneth James Williams Craik. 1943. The nature of explanation, volume 445. CUP Archive. Ganqu Cui, Lifan Yuan, Ning Ding, Guanming Yao, Bingxiang He, Wei Zhu, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Ruobing Xie, Yankai Lin, et al. 2024. Ultrafeedback: Boosting language models with scaled ai feedback. In Forty-f...

arXiv 1943
[3]

All other block weights are initially unknown

work page
[4]

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2):1–25

Delidata: A dataset for deliberation in multi- party problem solving. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2):1–25. Ibrahim Khebour, Richard Brutti, Indrani Dey, Rachel Dickler, Kelsey Sikes, Kenneth Lai, Mariah Bradford, Brittany Cates, Paige Hansen, Changsoo Jung, et al. 2024a. When text and speech are not enough: A multimodal dat...

arXiv 2024
[5]

Thought-Provoking: Encourages self-reflection

work page
[6]

Any Other Thoughts, Hedgehog?

Editing personality for large language mod- els. In CCF International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, pages 241–254. Springer. Pedro Henrique Martins, Zita Marinho, and André F. T. Martins. 2020. Sparse text generation. Preprint, arXiv:2004.02644. Yu Meng, Mengzhou Xia, and Danqi Chen. 2024. Simpo: Simple preference optimi...

arXiv 2020
[7]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19733

Iterative reasoning preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19733. Xue Bin Peng, Aviral Kumar, Grace Zhang, and Sergey Levine. 2019. Advantage-weighted regression: Sim- ple and scalable off-policy reinforcement learning. Preprint, arXiv:1910.00177. David Premack and Guy Woodruff. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and b...

arXiv 2019
[10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10020

Self-rewarding language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10020. Xiaoxue Zang, Abhinav Rastogi, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, Jianguo Zhang, and Jindong Chen

arXiv

Show all 25 references

[13]

They are told the red block’s weight at the start
[15]

Simulated

Scale slider is not needed (blocks are in 10g increments) Provide [N] frictive states with their resolutions in the following JSON format. For each state, include both a preferred and less preferred intervention that could help resolve the conflict. Additionally, provide a one...

2024
[16]

In a multiturn benchmark like MTBench, these are sample answers (from, say GPT-4) that showcase the desired dimensions

Dimensions are assessed relative to some gold-standard sample in the precollected task data. In a multiturn benchmark like MTBench, these are sample answers (from, say GPT-4) that showcase the desired dimensions. For our datasets we use, these are the gold-standard friction in...
[17]

For each evaluation, a dialogue history, starting at the beginning until the point where friction is required, is given to the Judge along with the candidate in- terventions

Following standing practice, the interventions whose results are reported in Tables 1 and 2 are sampled iteratively. For each evaluation, a dialogue history, starting at the beginning until the point where friction is required, is given to the Judge along with the candidate in...
[18]

Are we sure?

Now imagine an alternate condition where we want to continue the dialogue after the inter- vention from a source distributionµ other than the fixed dataset—this could be either actual humans performing the task or, having GPT-4 generate future utterances given a task descrip- ...

2024
[19]

Relevance: How well does the intervention address key issues or assumptions in the reasoning process?
[20]

Gold Alignment: How well does the friction intervention align with the golden friction sample?
[21]

Actionability: Does the friction intervention provide actionable guidance or suggest concrete steps for participants to improve their reasoning?
[22]

Rationale Fit: How well does the provided rationale align with the preference for the friction intervention?
[24]

Specificity: Does the intervention pinpoint specific flaws, assumptions, or gaps?
[25]

fibonacci like, let’s say that’s the first one, according to our translate, thirteen, one thirty

Impact: To what extent does the friction intervention have the potential to change the course of the participants’ reasoning? Format your response as follows: A: relevance: [1 − 5], gold_alignment: [1 − 5], actionability: [1 − 5], rationale_fit: [1 − 5], thought_provoking: [1 ...
[142]

Ilya Loshchilov, Frank Hutter, et al

Springer. Ilya Loshchilov, Frank Hutter, et al. 2017. Fixing weight decay regularization in adam. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 5. Shengyu Mao, Xiaohan Wang, Mengru Wang, Yong Jiang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, and Ningyu Zhang

2017 arXiv
[2020]

declaration

MultiWOZ 2.2 : A dialogue dataset with additional annotation corrections and state tracking baselines. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Conversational AI, pages 109–117, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. Susan Zhang, Step...

2009 arXiv
[2021]

In Proceedings of the 2021 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10266–10284

Measuring association between labels and free-text rationales. In Proceedings of the 2021 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10266–10284. Christian Wirth, Riad Akrour, Gerhard Neumann, and Johannes Fürnkranz. 2017. A survey of preference- b...

2021 arXiv
[2022]

In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 351–360, Edinburgh, UK

MultiWOZ 2.4: A multi-domain task-oriented dialogue dataset with essential annotation corrections to improve state tracking evaluation. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 351–360, Edinburgh, UK. Association ...
[2023]

description of personality

Aligning language models with preferences through f-divergence minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08215. Lewis R Goldberg. 2013. An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. In Personality and Personality Disorders, pages 34–47. Routledge. H...

2013 arXiv
[2024]

In Seventeenth European Workshop on Rein- forcement Learning

Robust chain of thoughts preference optimiza- tion. In Seventeenth European Workshop on Rein- forcement Learning. Herbert H Clark. 1996. Using language. Cambridge university press. Katherine M Collins, Valerie Chen, Ilia Sucholutsky, Hannah Rose Kirk, Malak Sadek, Holli Sargea...

1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Participants can only weigh two blocks at a time

work page

[2] [2]

Modulating language model experiences through frictions. CoRR. Kenneth James Williams Craik. 1943. The nature of explanation, volume 445. CUP Archive. Ganqu Cui, Lifan Yuan, Ning Ding, Guanming Yao, Bingxiang He, Wei Zhu, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Ruobing Xie, Yankai Lin, et al. 2024. Ultrafeedback: Boosting language models with scaled ai feedback. In Forty-f...

arXiv 1943

[3] [3]

All other block weights are initially unknown

work page

[4] [4]

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2):1–25

Delidata: A dataset for deliberation in multi- party problem solving. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2):1–25. Ibrahim Khebour, Richard Brutti, Indrani Dey, Rachel Dickler, Kelsey Sikes, Kenneth Lai, Mariah Bradford, Brittany Cates, Paige Hansen, Changsoo Jung, et al. 2024a. When text and speech are not enough: A multimodal dat...

arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Thought-Provoking: Encourages self-reflection

work page

[6] [6]

Any Other Thoughts, Hedgehog?

Editing personality for large language mod- els. In CCF International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, pages 241–254. Springer. Pedro Henrique Martins, Zita Marinho, and André F. T. Martins. 2020. Sparse text generation. Preprint, arXiv:2004.02644. Yu Meng, Mengzhou Xia, and Danqi Chen. 2024. Simpo: Simple preference optimi...

arXiv 2020

[7] [7]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19733

Iterative reasoning preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19733. Xue Bin Peng, Aviral Kumar, Grace Zhang, and Sergey Levine. 2019. Advantage-weighted regression: Sim- ple and scalable off-policy reinforcement learning. Preprint, arXiv:1910.00177. David Premack and Guy Woodruff. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and b...

arXiv 2019

[8] [10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10020

Self-rewarding language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10020. Xiaoxue Zang, Abhinav Rastogi, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, Jianguo Zhang, and Jindong Chen

arXiv