Akifumi Wachi

Keita Saito, Akifumi Wachi, Koki Wataoka et al.

In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have witnessed a remarkable surge in prevalence, altering the landscape of natural language processing and machine learning. One key factor in improving the performance of LLMs is alignment with humans achieved with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), as for many LLMs such as GPT-4, Bard, etc. In addition, recent studies are investigating the replacement of human feedback with feedback from other LLMs named Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF). We examine the biases that come along with evaluating LLMs with other LLMs and take a closer look into verbosity bias -- a bias where LLMs sometimes prefer more verbose answers even if they have similar qualities. We see that in our problem setting, GPT-4 prefers longer answers more than humans. We also propose a metric to measure this bias.

Shokichi Takakura, Akifumi Wachi, Rei Higuchi et al.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) to diverse human preferences is fundamentally challenging since criteria can often conflict with each other. Inference-time alignment methods have recently gained popularity as they allow LLMs to be aligned to multiple criteria via different alignment algorithms at inference time. However, inference-time alignment is computationally expensive since it often requires multiple forward passes of the base model. In this work, we propose inference-aware meta-alignment (IAMA), a novel approach that enables LLMs to be aligned to multiple criteria with limited computational budget at inference time. IAMA trains a base model such that it can be effectively aligned to multiple tasks via different inference-time alignment algorithms. To solve the non-linear optimization problems involved in IAMA, we propose non-linear GRPO, which provably converges to the optimal solution in the space of probability measures.

Akifumi Wachi, Hirota Kinoshita, Shokichi Takakura et al.

Reinforcement learning (RL) is a dominant paradigm for improving the reasoning abilities of large language models, yet its effectiveness varies across tasks and compute budgets. We propose a \emph{relative-budget} theory explaining this variation through a single quantity called relative budget $ξ:= H/\mathbb{E}[T]$, where $H$ is the generation horizon (token budget) and $T$ denotes the number of tokens until the first correct solution under a base policy. We show that $ξ$ determines sample efficiency by controlling reward variance and the likelihood of informative trajectories. Our analysis reveals three regimes: in the \emph{deficient} regime ($ξ\to 0$), informative trajectories are rare and the sample complexity explodes; in the \emph{balanced} regime ($ξ=Θ(1)$), informative trajectories occur with non-negligible probability and RL is maximally sample-efficient; and in the \emph{ample} regime ($ξ\to \infty$), learning remains stable but marginal gains per iteration diminish. We further provide finite-sample guarantees for online RL that characterize learning progress across these regimes. Specifically, in a case study under idealized distributional assumptions, we show that the relative budget grows linearly over iterations. Our empirical results confirm these predictions in realistic settings, identifying a budget $ξ\in [1.5, 2.0]$ that maximizes learning efficiency and coincides with peak reasoning performance.