Ensemble Learning for Heterogeneous Large Language Models with Deep Parallel Collaboration

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit complementary strengths in various tasks, motivating the research of LLM ensembling. However, existing work focuses on training an extra reward model or fusion model to select or combine all candidate answers, posing a great challenge to the generalization on unseen data distributions. Besides, prior methods use textual responses as communication media, ignoring the valuable information in the internal representations. In this work, we propose a training-free ensemble framework DeePEn, fusing the informative probability distributions yielded by different LLMs at each decoding step. Unfortunately, the vocabulary discrepancy between heterogeneous LLMs directly makes averaging the distributions unfeasible due to the token misalignment. To address this challenge, DeePEn maps the probability distribution of each model from its own probability space to a universal relative space based on the relative representation theory, and performs aggregation. Next, we devise a search-based inverse transformation to transform the aggregated result back to the probability space of one of the ensembling LLMs (main model), in order to determine the next token. We conduct extensive experiments on ensembles of different number of LLMs, ensembles of LLMs with different architectures, and ensembles between the LLM and the specialist model. Experimental results show that (i) DeePEn achieves consistent improvements across six benchmarks covering subject examination, reasoning, and knowledge, (ii) a well-performing specialist model can benefit from a less effective LLM through distribution fusion, and (iii) DeePEn has complementary strengths with other ensemble methods such as voting.

Paper

References (33)

Scroll for more · 21 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer JJTA7/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-08

Summary

The authors propose to use relative representations to unify the tokenization across different models for an effective ensemble. They first transform the prediction of each model to a relative space. Then, after averaging the relative predictions, they perform a gradient-based optimization to find the averaged prediction in the original space.

Strengths

1. The authors propose an interesting idea for dealing with different tokenization. 2. The authors provide detailed analysis such as learning rate and the number of steps for the search step.

Weaknesses

1. The proposed method requires gradient updates to project back to the original space at every generation step. This can cause extra overhead. 2. The performance largely depend on the number of common anchor words between different LLMs (Figure 4). As a result, the method may be not effective when the domain of pretrained LLMs are very different.

Questions

1. Have you tried other normalization methods other than softmax?

Rating

7

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

Discussed in Appendix.

Reviewer Q9GV6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-11

Summary

The paper introduces DEEPEN, a novel training-free ensemble framework designed to leverage the complementary strengths of various large language models (LLMs). The key innovation of DEEPEN lies in its ability to fuse informative probability distributions from different LLMs at each decoding step, addressing the challenge of vocabulary discrepancies between heterogeneous LLMs. DEEPEN operates by transforming the probability distributions from each model's vocabulary space into a shared "relative representation" space based on the relative representation theory, which uses embedding similarities to a set of anchor tokens. The aggregated relative representations are then mapped back to the vocabulary space of one LLM (the main model) to determine the generated token.

Strengths

1) The paper introduces DEEPEN, a novel ensemble learning framework that enables collaboration among heterogeneous large language models without the need for additional training. A significant contribution is the solution to the vocabulary mismatch problem between different LLMs, allowing for more effective fusion of their outputs. 2) The paper includes extensive experiments across six benchmarks, demonstrating DEEPEN's consistent improvements in performance and its complementary strengths with other ensemble methods. 3) DEEPEN demonstrates better stability compared to baseline methods, which struggle with generalization to unseen data distributions. 4) The framework is open to further extensions and improvements, such as the development of more sophisticated methods for determining collaboration weights.

Weaknesses

1) The paper does not provide a detailed analysis of how well DEEPEN generalizes to unseen data or across different types of tasks beyond the evaluated benchmarks. 2) The method's performance is sensitive to the choice of hyperparameters, such as the relative ensemble learning rate. Finding optimal hyperparameters may require additional tuning and may not be straightforward. 3) The performance of DEEPEN relies heavily on the selection of anchor words. The paper does not thoroughly explore the impact of different anchor word selection strategies on the ensemble performance.

Questions

See weaknesses.

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

See weaknesses.

Reviewer c5c36/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-12

Summary

The paper introduces a method that maps output distributions of different LLMs to and from a universal relative space to aggregate them, based on which the next token is determined.

Strengths

- The paper is structured well and written clearly. - It proposes a novel method of ensembling the heterogeneous output distributions of LLMs. - The method is mathematically well-motivated. - It shows good empirical performance and ablation studies give valuable insights.

Weaknesses

- **Presentation**: Although the paper is well-structured, some passages could be condensed. For instance, the paragraphs "Anchor Selection" and "Normalization of relative representation matrix" simply repeat what has already been stated in the general paragraph above. Also, sections 3.3 and 3.5 both consider the aggregation of relative representations, currently separated by section 3.4 which considers the inverse transformation. Combining those conceptually the same topics would improve the reading flow. - **Evaluation**: Although the paper provides numerous ablation studies, the method is only compared against the baselines in the main experiments (Tab. 1). Here, the method outperforms the baseline in (only) 7/12 settings. Also comparing to the baselines in the other experiments (see questions to Fig. 3. and Tab. 2-3 below) would provide further insights into the performance of the method.

Questions

- Figure 1: what do the three colors (blue, yellow, purple) indicate? - Table 1: Why did the authors not report DEEPEN-Adapt with Top-2 Ensembles? (DEEPEN-Adapt outperforms DEEPEN-Avg on all benchmark tasks with Top-4 Ensembles, so why is this not the default setting?) - Figure 3: How do the baseline methods perform with an increasing number of ensemble members considered? - Table 2 & 3: How do the baseline methods perform with the dense/sparse models and the generalist/specialist models?

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors adequately addressed the limitations.

Reviewer c5c32024-08-08

Thank you for the rebuttal. Your responses have adequately addressed my questions and concerns.

Reviewer JJTA2024-08-14

Thanks for the detailed response! I will maintain my positive stance towards the paper.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (spotlight)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC