Multi-agent collaboration among models has shown promise in reasoning tasks but is underexplored in long-form generation tasks like summarization and question-answering. We extend multi-agent multi-model reasoning to generation, specifically to improving faithfulness through refinement, i.e., revising model-generated outputs to remove factual inconsistencies. We investigate how iterative collaboration among multiple instances and types of large language models (LLMs) enhances subtasks in the refinement process, such as error detection, critiquing unfaithful sentences, and making corrections based on critiques. We design intrinsic evaluations for each subtask, with our findings indicating that both multi-agent (multiple instances) and multi-model (diverse LLM types) approaches benefit error detection and critiquing. Additionally, reframing critiquing and refinement as reranking rather than generation tasks improves multi-agent performance. We consolidate these insights into a final "recipe" called Multi-Agent Multi-Model Refinement (MAMM-Refine), where multi-agent and multi-model collaboration significantly boosts performance on three summarization datasets as well as on long-form question answering, demonstrating the effectiveness and generalizability of our recipe.

Combining existing pre-trained expert LLMs is a promising avenue for scalably tackling large-scale and diverse tasks. However, selecting experts at the task level is often too coarse-grained, as heterogeneous tasks may require different expertise for each instance. To enable adaptive instance-level mixing of pre-trained LLM experts, we propose Symbolic-MoE, a symbolic, text-based, and gradient-free Mixture-of-Experts framework. Symbolic-MoE takes a fine-grained approach to selection by emphasizing skills, e.g., algebra in math or molecular biology in biomedical reasoning. We propose a skill-based recruiting strategy that dynamically selects the most relevant set of expert LLMs for diverse reasoning tasks based on their strengths. Each selected expert then generates its own reasoning, resulting in k outputs from k experts, which are then synthesized into a final high-quality response by an aggregator chosen based on its ability to integrate diverse reasoning outputs. We show that Symbolic-MoE's instance-level expert selection improves performance by a large margin but -- when implemented naively -- can introduce a high computational overhead due to the need for constant model loading and offloading. To address this, we implement a batch inference strategy that groups instances based on their assigned experts, loading each model only once. This allows us to integrate 16 expert models on 1 GPU with a time cost comparable to or better than prior multi-agent baselines using 4 GPUs. Through extensive evaluations on diverse benchmarks (MMLU-Pro, GPQA, AIME, and MedMCQA), we demonstrate that Symbolic-MoE outperforms strong LLMs like GPT4o-mini, as well as multi-agent approaches, with an absolute average improvement of 8.15% over the best multi-agent baseline. Moreover, Symbolic-MoE removes the need for expensive multi-round discussions, outperforming discussion baselines with less computation.

User specifications or legal frameworks often require information to be removed from pretrained models, including large language models (LLMs). This requires deleting or "forgetting" a set of data points from an already-trained model, which typically degrades its performance on other data points. Thus, a balance must be struck between removing information and keeping the model's other abilities intact, with a failure to balance this trade-off leading to poor deletion or an unusable model. To this end, we propose UPCORE (Utility-Preserving Coreset Selection), a method-agnostic data selection framework for mitigating collateral damage during unlearning. Finding that the model damage is correlated with the variance of the model's representations on the forget set, we selectively prune the forget set to remove outliers, thereby minimizing model degradation after unlearning. We evaluate UPCORE across three standard unlearning methods consistently achieving a superior balance between the competing objectives of deletion efficacy and model preservation. To better evaluate this trade-off, we introduce a new metric, measuring the area-under-the-curve (AUC) across standard metrics. We find that UPCORE improves both standard metrics and AUC, benefitting from positive transfer between the coreset and pruned points while reducing negative transfer from the forget set to points outside of it.

Inference-time intervention (ITI) has emerged as a promising method for steering large language model (LLM) behavior in a particular direction (e.g., improving helpfulness) by intervening on token representations without costly updates to the LLM's parameters. However, existing ITI approaches fail to scale to multi-attribute settings with conflicts, such as enhancing helpfulness while also reducing toxicity. To address this, we introduce Multi-Attribute Targeted Steering (MAT-Steer), a novel steering framework designed for selective token-level intervention across multiple attributes. MAT-Steer learns steering vectors using an alignment objective that shifts the model's internal representations of undesirable outputs closer to those of desirable ones while enforcing sparsity and orthogonality among vectors for different attributes, thereby reducing inter-attribute conflicts. We evaluate MAT-Steer in two distinct settings: (i) on question answering (QA) tasks where we balance attributes like truthfulness, bias, and toxicity; (ii) on generative tasks where we simultaneously improve attributes like helpfulness, correctness, and coherence. MAT-Steer outperforms existing ITI and parameter-efficient finetuning approaches across both task types (e.g., 3% average accuracy gain across QA tasks and 55.82% win rate against the best ITI baseline).

Unit tests (UTs) play an instrumental role in assessing code correctness as well as providing feedback to a large language model (LLM) as it iteratively debugs faulty code, motivating automated test generation. However, we uncover a trade-off between generating unit test inputs that reveal errors when given a faulty code and correctly predicting the unit test output without access to the gold solution. To address this trade-off, we propose UTGen, which teaches LLMs to generate unit test inputs that reveal errors along with their correct expected outputs based on task descriptions and candidate code. We integrate UTGen into UTDebug, a robust debugging pipeline that uses generated tests to help LLMs debug effectively. Since model-generated tests can provide noisy signals (e.g., from incorrectly predicted outputs), UTDebug (i) scales UTGen via test-time compute to improve UT output prediction, and (ii) validates and back-tracks edits based on multiple generated UTs to avoid overfitting. We show that UTGen outperforms UT generation baselines by 7.59% based on a metric measuring the presence of both error-revealing UT inputs and correct UT outputs. When used with UTDebug, we find that feedback from UTGen's unit tests improves pass@1 accuracy of Qwen-2.5 7B on HumanEvalFix and our own harder debugging split of MBPP+ by over 3% and 12.35% (respectively) over other LLM-based UT generation baselines.

The process of creating training data to teach models is currently driven by humans, who manually analyze model weaknesses and plan how to create data that improves a student model. Approaches using LLMs as annotators reduce human effort, but still require humans to interpret feedback from evaluations and control the LLM to produce data the student needs. Automating this labor-intensive process by creating autonomous data generation agents - or teachers - is desirable, but requires environments that can simulate the feedback-driven, iterative, closed loop of data creation. To enable rapid, scalable testing for such agents and their modules, we introduce DataEnvGym, a testbed of teacher environments for data generation agents. DataEnvGym frames data generation as a sequential decision-making task, involving an agent consisting of a data generation policy (which generates a plan for creating training data) and a data generation engine (which transforms the plan into data), inside an environment that provides student feedback. The agent's goal is to improve student performance. Students are iteratively trained and evaluated on generated data, and their feedback (in the form of errors or weak skills) is reported to the agent after each iteration. DataEnvGym includes multiple teacher environment instantiations across 3 levels of structure in the state representation and action space. More structured environments are based on inferred skills and offer more interpretability and curriculum control. We support 4 domains (math, code, VQA, and tool-use) and test multiple students and teachers. Example agents in our teaching environments can iteratively improve students across tasks and settings. Moreover, we show that environments teach different skill levels and test variants of key modules, pointing to future work in improving data generation agents, engines, and feedback mechanisms.

Large language models (LLMs) are susceptible to persuasion, which can pose risks when models are faced with an adversarial interlocutor. We take a first step towards defending models against persuasion while also arguing that defense against adversarial (i.e. negative) persuasion is only half of the equation: models should also be able to accept beneficial (i.e. positive) persuasion to improve their answers. We show that optimizing models for only one side results in poor performance on the other. In order to balance positive and negative persuasion, we introduce Persuasion-Balanced Training (or PBT), which leverages multi-agent recursive dialogue trees to create data and trains models via preference optimization to accept persuasion when appropriate. PBT consistently improves resistance to misinformation and resilience to being challenged while also resulting in the best overall performance on holistic data containing both positive and negative persuasion. Crucially, we show that PBT models are better teammates in multi-agent debates. We find that without PBT, pairs of stronger and weaker models have unstable performance, with the order in which the models present their answers determining whether the team obtains the stronger or weaker model's performance. PBT leads to better and more stable results and less order dependence, with the stronger model consistently pulling the weaker one up.

Reward Models (RMs) play a crucial role in aligning LLMs with human preferences, enhancing their performance by ranking outputs during inference or iterative training. However, the degree to which an RM generalizes to new tasks is often not known a priori (e.g. some RMs may excel at scoring creative writing vs. math reasoning). Therefore, using only one fixed RM while training LLMs can be suboptimal. Moreover, optimizing LLMs with multiple RMs simultaneously can be prohibitively computationally-intensive and challenging due to conflicting signals from different RMs, potentially degrading performance. To address these challenges, we introduce LASeR (Learning to Adaptively Select Rewards), which iteratively trains LLMs using multiple RMs, selecting and utilizing the most well-suited RM for each instance to rank outputs and generate preference data, framed as a multi-armed bandit problem. Our results on commonsense and math reasoning tasks demonstrate that LASeR can boost iterative LLM optimization by optimizing for multiple RMs, improving the absolute average accuracy of Llama-3-8B over three datasets by 2.67% over training with ensemble RM scores while also showing superior training efficiency (e.g., a 2x speedup). Moreover, on WildChat, a benchmark of instruction-following prompts, we find that using Llama-3-8B LASeR leads to a 71.45% AlpacaEval win rate over sequentially optimizing multiple RMs. Extending to long-context generation tasks, we find that on Llama-3-8B, LASeR achieves an average improvement of 2.64 F1 and 2.42 F1 on single- and multi-document QA over random RM selection when used with best-of-n sampling. LASeR is robust to noisy rewards and generalizes to multiple settings. Finally, LASeR's RM selection changes depending on the underlying task or instance and we verify the presence of conflicting preferences from multiple RMs that can be mitigated using LASeR.

The model editing problem concerns how language models should learn new facts about the world over time. While empirical research on model editing has drawn widespread attention, the conceptual foundations of model editing remain shaky -- perhaps unsurprisingly, since model editing is essentially belief revision, a storied problem in philosophy that has eluded succinct solutions for decades. Model editing nonetheless demands a solution, since we need to be able to control the knowledge within language models. With this goal in mind, this paper critiques the standard formulation of the model editing problem and proposes a formal testbed for model editing research. We first describe 12 open problems with model editing, based on challenges with (1) defining the problem, (2) developing benchmarks, and (3) assuming LLMs have editable beliefs in the first place. Many of these challenges are extremely difficult to address, e.g. determining far-reaching consequences of edits, labeling probabilistic entailments between facts, and updating beliefs of agent simulators. Next, we introduce a semi-synthetic dataset for model editing based on Wikidata, where we can evaluate edits against labels given by an idealized Bayesian agent. This enables us to say exactly how belief revision in language models falls short of a desirable epistemic standard. We encourage further research exploring settings where such a gold standard can be compared against. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/peterbhase/LLM-belief-revision

Vision-language models (VLMs) can respond to queries about images in many languages. However, beyond language, culture affects how we see things. For example, individuals from Western cultures focus more on the central figure in an image while individuals from Eastern cultures attend more to scene context. In this work, we present a novel investigation that demonstrates and localizes VLMs' Western bias in image understanding. We evaluate large VLMs across subjective and objective visual tasks with culturally diverse images and annotations. We find that VLMs perform better on the Western subset than the Eastern subset of each task. Controlled experimentation tracing the source of this bias highlights the importance of a diverse language mix in text-only pre-training for building equitable VLMs, even when inference is performed in English. Moreover, while prompting in the language of a target culture can lead to reductions in bias, it is not a substitute for building AI more representative of the world's languages.