Improving LLMs via Validator-to-Generator Alignment
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models are inconsistent: varying prompts or including unrelated information can lead to unexpected changes in model outputs. The generator-validator (G-V) gap is one manifestation of this phenomenon, where LLMs generate responses that they then deem as invalid if re-queried to validate them. In this work, we introduce a new formulation of G-V consistency that involves a principled correction for utterance frequency. Specifically, generators often assign low likelihood to valid strings simply because those strings are a priori unlikely, which makes naive notions of G-V consistency unworkable. We show that under a natural model of rational agents answering questions with multiple answers, consistency of the validator with a frequency-corrected generator score emerges naturally. Our method, FCPAname (FCPA), is a training objective implementing frequency-corrected G-V consistency for real-world LLMs. Our experimental results show that training with FCPA substantially improves both G-V consistency and generator performance over prior methods, with gains of up to +27pp in Pearson correlation on IFEval and HumanEval, while preserving validator quality across all evaluated tasks.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jul 2026.
Builds on
17 of 32 references.
References · 17
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
- 2021An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian Inferencecited by 915
- 2022Contrastive Decoding: Open-ended Text Generation as Optimizationcited by 598
- 2021DExperts: Decoding-Time Controlled Text Generation with Experts and Anti-Expertscited by 434
- 2024Contrastive Preference Optimization: Pushing the Boundaries of LLM Performance in Machine Translationcited by 390
- 2021Surface Form Competition: Why the Highest Probability Answer Isn't Always Rightcited by 256
- 2023The Generative AI Paradox: "What It Can Create, It May Not Understand"cited by 97
- 2024"My Answer is C": First-Token Probabilities Do Not Match Text Answers in Instruction-Tuned Language Modelscited by 66
5 more
- 2025NoveltyBench: Evaluating Language Models for Humanlike Diversitycited by 64
- 2024Forcing Diffuse Distributions out of Language Modelscited by 48
- 2023Benchmarking and Improving Generator-Validator Consistency of Language Modelscited by 43
- 2025Belief Dynamics Reveal the Dual Nature of In-Context Learning and Activation Steeringcited by 24
- 2025The Illusion of Certainty: Uncertainty Quantification for LLMs Fails under Ambiguitycited by 15
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025High Accuracy, Less Talk (HALT): Reliable LLMs through Capability-Aligned Finetuning
- 2026A Dialectic Pipeline for Improving LLM Robustness
- 2025QA-LIGN: Aligning LLMs through Constitutionally Decomposed QA
- 2023Let's Sample Step by Step: Adaptive-Consistency for Efficient Reasoning and Coding with LLMs
- 2024Improving the Robustness of Large Language Models via Consistency Alignment
- 2025ConsistencyChecker: Tree-based Evaluation of LLM Generalization Capabilities
- 2023Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well?
- 2023Self-Consistency of Large Language Models under Ambiguity