Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in LLM using Soft RLLF for Enhanced Negation Understanding

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 2403.01185 v1 pith:E6NFMP4E submitted 2024-03-02 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords explorationnegationexploitationrllfunderstandingllmsmodelsaccurate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Finetuning approaches in NLP often focus on exploitation rather than exploration, which may lead to suboptimal models. Given the vast search space of natural language, this limited exploration can restrict their performance in complex, high-stakes domains, where accurate negation understanding and logical reasoning abilities are crucial. To address this issue, we leverage Reinforcement Learning from Logical Feedback (RLLF) to create an effective balance between exploration and exploitation in LLMs. Our approach employs an appropriate benchmark dataset for training and evaluation, highlighting the importance of exploration in enhancing negation understanding capabilities. We compare the performance of our RLLF-enhanced LLMs with baseline models trained without RLLF, demonstrating the value of this balanced approach. Furthermore, we showcase the potential of our method in legal AI applications by employing transfer learning and evaluating its impact on negation understanding. Our experimental results exhibit the effectiveness of balancing exploration and exploitation with RLLF in improving LLMs' negation capabilities. This has implications for the development of more accurate, reliable, and logically consistent language models in high-stakes domains.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Adversarial Testing in LLMs: Insights into Decision-Making Vulnerabilities

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An adversarial-agent framework adapted from human decision-making research reveals that GPT-4, Gemini-1.5, and DeepSeek-V3 are more rigid and easily manipulated in bandit and trust-game tasks than GPT-3.5 or humans.

  2. Search, Verify and Feedback: Towards Next Generation Post-training Paradigm of Foundation Models via Verifier Engineering

    cs.AI 2024-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey and position paper that reframes post-training of foundation models as a search, verify, and feedback pipeline called verifier engineering.

  3. An Overview and Discussion on Using Large Language Models for Implementation Generation of Solutions to Open-Ended Problems

    cs.CL 2024-12 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey and position paper that reviews LLM prompting, RAG, and RL techniques and argues they could support open-ended implementation generation, without presenting new results.

Pith tools