Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Decoding-Time Language Model Alignment with Multiple Objectives

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 2406.18853 v3 pith:BDHSE2VM submitted 2024-06-27 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords objectivesmodelscombinationdifferentimprovementachievesalgorithmalignment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Aligning language models (LMs) to human preferences has emerged as a critical pursuit, enabling these models to better serve diverse user needs. Existing methods primarily focus on optimizing LMs for a single reward function, limiting their adaptability to varied objectives. Here, we propose $\textbf{multi-objective decoding (MOD)}$, a decoding-time algorithm that outputs the next token from a linear combination of predictions of all base models, for any given weightings over different objectives. We exploit a common form among a family of $f$-divergence regularized alignment approaches (such as PPO, DPO, and their variants) to identify a closed-form solution by Legendre transform, and derive an efficient decoding strategy. Theoretically, we show why existing approaches can be sub-optimal even in natural settings and obtain optimality guarantees for our method. Empirical results demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithm. For example, compared to a parameter-merging baseline, MOD achieves 12.8% overall reward improvement when equally optimizing towards $3$ objectives. Moreover, we experiment with MOD on combining three fully-finetuned LLMs of different model sizes, each aimed at different objectives such as safety, coding, and general user preference. Unlike traditional methods that require careful curation of a mixture of datasets to achieve comprehensive improvement, we can quickly experiment with preference weightings using MOD to find the best combination of models. Our best combination reduces toxicity on Toxigen to nearly 0% and achieves 7.9--33.3% improvement across other three metrics ($\textit{i.e.}$, Codex@1, GSM-COT, BBH-COT).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Representation-Based Exploration for Language Models: From Test-Time to Post-Training

    cs.LG 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Representation-based elliptical bonuses improve inference-time and post-training pass@k for LLM reasoning, but the headline AIME result is tainted by validation/test overlap.

  2. Multi-objective Large Language Model Alignment with Hierarchical Experts

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HoE claims to align a single LLM to any preference vector over multiple objectives using training-free LoRA experts, lightweight trained routers, and nearest-neighbor preference routing.

  3. Extended Inductive Reasoning for Personalized Preference Inference from Behavioral Signals

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 7B model trained with synthetic reasoning demonstrations plus reinforcement learning infers explicit user preference descriptions from behavioral signals, improving personalized response judging and generation.

  4. A Survey on Training-free Alignment of Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that catalogs and categorizes training-free LLM alignment methods into pre-decoding, in-decoding, and post-decoding, with a limited experimental comparison on one model.

Pith tools