Reranking Laws for Language Generation: A Communication-Theoretic Perspective
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
To ensure large language models (LLMs) are used safely, one must reduce their propensity to hallucinate or to generate unacceptable answers. A simple and often used strategy is to first let the LLM generate multiple hypotheses and then employ a reranker to choose the best one. In this paper, we draw a parallel between this strategy and the use of redundancy to decrease the error rate in noisy communication channels. We conceptualize the generator as a sender transmitting multiple descriptions of a message through parallel noisy channels. The receiver decodes the message by ranking the (potentially corrupted) descriptions and selecting the one found to be most reliable. We provide conditions under which this protocol is asymptotically error-free (i.e., yields an acceptable answer almost surely) even in scenarios where the reranker is imperfect (governed by Mallows or Zipf-Mandelbrot models) and the channel distributions are statistically dependent. We use our framework to obtain reranking laws which we validate empirically on two real-world tasks using LLMs: text-to-code generation with DeepSeek-Coder 7B and machine translation of medical data with TowerInstruct 13B.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 52 of its 80 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Sep 2024.
Builds on
52 of 80 references.
References · 52
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,562
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
- 2019Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLPcited by 1,242
- 2024DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligencecited by 1,154
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,024
38 more
- 2021Are NLP Models really able to Solve Simple Math Word Problems?cited by 861
- 2021Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategiescited by 736
- 2023Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Modelscited by 558
- 2024Executable Code Actions Elicit Better LLM Agentscited by 537
- 2023RRHF: Rank Responses to Align Language Models with Human Feedback without tearscited by 454
- 2024LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Taskscited by 236
- 2023LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Executioncited by 228
- 2022CometKiwi: IST-Unbabel 2022 Submission for the Quality Estimation Shared Taskcited by 205
- 2022Can large language models reason about medical questions?cited by 194
- 2019Sparse Sequence-to-Sequence Modelscited by 167
- 2023Conformal Language Modelingcited by 163
- 2019Adaptively Sparse Transformerscited by 154
- 2023GEMBA-MQM: Detecting Translation Quality Error Spans with GPT-4cited by 143
- 2020Is MAP Decoding All You Need? The Inadequacy of the Mode in Neural Machine Translationcited by 137
- 2023Hallucinations in Large Multilingual Translation Modelscited by 126
- 2022Natural Language to Code Translation with Executioncited by 122
- 2019Learning with Fenchel-Young Lossescited by 117
- 2023Let's Sample Step by Step: Adaptive-Consistency for Efficient Reasoning and Coding with LLMscited by 111
- 2021Scaling Laws for Neural Machine Translationcited by 110
- 2021High Quality Rather than High Model Probability: Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Neural Metricscited by 104
- 2023The Devil is in the Errors: Leveraging Large Language Models for Fine-grained Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 95
- 2020TICO-19: the Translation Initiative for Covid-19cited by 67
- 2024Decoding-time Realignment of Language Modelscited by 67
- 2024DeAL: Decoding-time Alignment for Large Language Modelscited by 55
- 2022Quality-Aware Decoding for Neural Machine Translationcited by 49
- 2023It's MBR All the Way Down: Modern Generation Techniques Through the Lens of Minimum Bayes Riskcited by 49
- 2020Energy-Based Reranking: Improving Neural Machine Translation Using Energy-Based Modelscited by 44
- 2020Sparse and Continuous Attention Mechanismscited by 37
- 2023Scaling Laws for Multilingual Neural Machine Translationcited by 27
- 2022Using Interactive Feedback to Improve the Accuracy and Explainability of Question Answering Systems Post-Deploymentcited by 25
- 2020Efficient Marginalization of Discrete and Structured Latent Variables via Sparsitycited by 21
- 2019Beyond Human-Level Accuracy: Computational Challenges in Deep Learningcited by 19
- 2023An Empirical Study of Translation Hypothesis Ensembling with Large Language Modelscited by 16
- 2019Leveraging Sentence Similarity in Natural Language Generation: Improving Beam Search using Range Votingcited by 15
- 2023Walking a Tightrope -- Evaluating Large Language Models in High-Risk Domainscited by 15
- 2021Sparse Continuous Distributions and Fenchel-Young Lossescited by 13
- 2024Don't Rank, Combine! Combining Machine Translation Hypotheses Using Quality Estimationcited by 13
- 2021Smoothing and Shrinking the Sparse Seq2Seq Search Spacecited by 11
50 most cited of 52 All 52 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3.
3 papers.