Randy Cogill

Vivswan Shah, Randy Cogill, Hanwei Yue et al.

Fine-tuning LLMs for classification typically maps inputs directly to labels. We ask whether attaching brief explanations to each label during fine-tuning yields better models. We evaluate conversational response quality along three axes: naturalness, comprehensiveness, and on-topic adherence, each rated on 5-point scales. Using ensemble-generated data from multiple LLMs, we fine-tune a 7B-parameter model and test across six diverse conversational datasets. Across 18 dataset, task settings, label-plus-explanation training outperforms label-only baselines. A central and unexpected result concerns random tokens. We replace human-written explanations with text that is syntactically incoherent yet vocabulary-aligned with the originals (e.g., shuffled or bag-of-words variants). Despite lacking semantics, these pseudo-explanations still improve accuracy over label-only training and often narrow much of the gap to true explanations. The effect persists across datasets and training seeds, indicating that gains arise less from meaning than from structure: the extra token budget encourages richer intermediate computation and acts as a regularizer that reduces over-confident shortcuts. Internal analyses support this view: explanation-augmented models exhibit higher activation entropy in intermediate layers alongside sharper predictive mass at the output layer, consistent with increased deliberation before decision. Overall, explanation-augmented fine-tuning, whether with genuine rationales or carefully constructed random token sequences, improves accuracy and reliability for LLM classification while clarifying how token-level scaffolding shapes computation during inference.

Xiaomin Lin, Peter A. Beling, Randy Cogill

We compare the performance of Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) with the relative new model of Multi-agent Inverse Reinforcement Learning (MIRL). Before comparing the methods, we extend a published Bayesian IRL approach that is only applicable to the case where the reward is only state dependent to a general one capable of tackling the case where the reward depends on both state and action. Comparison between IRL and MIRL is made in the context of an abstract soccer game, using both a game model in which the reward depends only on state and one in which it depends on both state and action. Results suggest that the IRL approach performs much worse than the MIRL approach. We speculate that the underperformance of IRL is because it fails to capture equilibrium information in the manner possible in MIRL.

Xiaomin Lin, Peter A. Beling, Randy Cogill

The focus of this paper is a Bayesian framework for solving a class of problems termed multi-agent inverse reinforcement learning (MIRL). Compared to the well-known inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) problem, MIRL is formalized in the context of stochastic games, which generalize Markov decision processes to game theoretic scenarios. We establish a theoretical foundation for competitive two-agent zero-sum MIRL problems and propose a Bayesian solution approach in which the generative model is based on an assumption that the two agents follow a minimax bi-policy. Numerical results are presented comparing the Bayesian MIRL method with two existing methods in the context of an abstract soccer game. Investigation centers on relationships between the extent of prior information and the quality of learned rewards. Results suggest that covariance structure is more important than mean value in reward priors.