Aligning LLM Agents by Learning Latent Preference from User Edits

We study interactive learning of LLM-based language agents based on user edits made to the agent's output. In a typical setting such as writing assistants, the user interacts with a language agent to generate a response given a context, and may optionally edit the agent response to personalize it based on their latent preference, in addition to improving the correctness. The edit feedback is naturally generated, making it a suitable candidate for improving the agent's alignment with the user's preference, and for reducing the cost of user edits over time. We propose a learning framework, PRELUDE that infers a description of the user's latent preference based on historic edit data. The inferred user preference descriptions are used to define prompts for generating responses in the future. This avoids fine-tuning the agent, which is costly, challenging to scale with the number of users, and may even degrade its performance on other tasks. Furthermore, learning descriptive preference improves interpretability, allowing the user to view and modify the learned preference. However, user preference can be complex, subtle, and vary based on context, making it challenging to learn. To address this, we propose a simple yet effective algorithm named CIPHER that leverages the LLM to infer the user preference for a given context based on user edits. In the future, CIPHER retrieves inferred preferences from the k-closest contexts in the history, and forms an aggregate preference for response generation. We introduce two interactive environments -- summarization and email writing, and use a GPT-4 simulated user for evaluation. On both tasks, CIPHER outperforms several baselines by achieving the lowest edit distance cost while only having a small overhead in LLM query cost. Our analysis reports that user preferences learned by CIPHER show significant similarity to the ground truth latent preferences.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer YQaz4/10 · confidence 3/52024-06-26

Summary

In this paper, the author formulates a new task that the user may want to edit the agent's response to make its later responses more personalized. The author proposes a method called PRELUDE to learn preference descriptions of users from users' previous edited contexts in an interactive framework. The author also proposes the CIPHER method to consolidate induced preferences with retrieval from users' historical edits. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, the author conducts experiments in two practical environments.

Strengths

1. The proposed a new task of user editing during the interaction process between the user and agent. 2. The methods are intuitive and easy to follow. 3. Many experiments are conducted to verify the effectiveness of the proposed methods.

Weaknesses

1. In practice, will someone take a lot of time to give feedback to the agent? It seems that users may refuse to provide revised responses for agents to get personalized responses. Maybe there can be some ways to obtain users' preferences in an implicit manner. 2. Can the cost function with Levenshtein edit distance currently reflect the gap in user preference? It seems the user preference belongs to the semantic space, while the Levenshtein edit distance is just comparing their differences in token sequences. 3. The embedding methods it utilizes in the process of converting historical text into vector representations do not have a fine-tuning process. So it is a pre-trained language model with fewer parameters, but there could be a critical problem in terms of retrieval gaps. I think the most significant factor that determines which piece should be retrieved, is the user preference. However, it seems that most pre-trained language models mainly embed and index texts according to their contents, rather than the styles like user preferences. Therefore, I think there may exist a large gap in the process of retrieval. 4. The user simulator that is implemented by GPT-4 should also be evaluated to verify it can align with humans in the real world. 5. The matrix of accuracy requires a classification model, but the author does not mention it in the paper. 6. The author does not provide open access to the source code and data, but the author chooses "YES" in checklist 5.

Questions

See "Weakness" above. If the author could address my concerns, I'm willing to improve my rating.

Rating

4

Confidence

3

Soundness

2

Presentation

2

Contribution

2

Limitations

The author provides an analysis of "Broad Impact Statement" in the Appendix D.

Reviewer EkvH7/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-12

Summary

This paper investigates interactive LLM alignment by analyzing user edits to an agent's responses. The proposed framework, PRELUDE, enhances the agent's alignment with user preferences without extensive fine-tuning, thus avoiding high costs and potential performance degradation on other tasks. PRELUDE infers user preferences from historical edits and uses them to guide response generation. The study introduces CIPHER, an algorithm using a LLM to predict user preferences based on context and past edits. Tested in summarization and email writing scenarios, CIPHER demonstrates good performance over other methods by reducing edit distances and computational costs, while maintaining user preference alignment.

Strengths

1. Study an interesting and important problem 2. The proposed framework is overall intuition and reasonable 3. The paper presentation is clear and very accessible

Weaknesses

No significant weaknesses but some method design choices can be further elaborated (better motivated). See below questions for more details.

Questions

1. What is (and how to decide) the granularity of each edit? Take the example in Figure 1 for instance, there are lots of edits on $y_t$ to obtain the $y_t'$. Are you merging all edits together? If yes, then the value $T$ in Protocol 1 is simply 1? But this seems contradicts to the statement in line 165 where the $T=200$. So are you treating each single modification as one edit? More discussions on this part is needed. 2. What is included in the context $x_t$ when $t>1$ in Protocol 2 and Algorithm 1? 3. What is the "Accuracy" metric in Table 2? It seems this metric is not included section 4.1?

Rating

7

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The author does provide some failure case analysis in Appendix.

Reviewer U3Kc7/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-17

Summary

The paper discusses interactive learning of LLM-based language agents based on user edits on the agent’s output. It first proposes the framework that infers a description of the user’s latent preferences based on historical edit data, and then uses an LLM to infer these user preferences. The proposed solution is tested on two tasks involving interactive environments: summarization and email writing.

Strengths

The paper is well-written, and the proposed algorithm/framework is well-illustrated. It also discusses an important topic: the interactive learning of LLM-based agents. Additionally, the experiments are comprehensive, including discussions on the qualitative analysis of learned preferences, human evaluation, failure case analysis.

Weaknesses

The paper leverages LLM to learn user preferences, which is sometimes not very reliable. Additionally, the retrieval of historical examples might not be relevant to the given context. I believe the authors have recognized these drawbacks and mentioned them in the limitations section.

Questions

What's your future plan to enhance the quality of the learned preference?

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors have adequately addressed the limitations

Reviewer Kfzn7/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-18

Summary

The paper first proposes, PRELUDE, session level personalization for a writing assistance task. Here a model must learn natural language user preferences from edits made by the user to outputs generated a model during a session. Next the paper proposes an algorithm, CIPHER, which leverages an LLM to infer natural language preferences given edits from a (simulated GPT4) user. The approach is evaluated in two writing tasks: summarization and email-writing and compared to a host of reasonable baselines and evaluated for its ability to reduce cumulative edit costs by the user in a session and for CIPHER's ability to recognize the latent preference.

Strengths

- The proposed edit based natural language preference learning task is novel and represents meaningful contribution to the field. While the proposed approach, CIPHER is does not make any significant technical advances it represents a reasonable first approach to the task and is worth exploring at the outset. - The proposed task also represents a natural setting in writing assistance making it a meaningful problem to explore. - The paper is well written for the most part. - The evaluation setup in the paper is clever for evaluating the proposed task and could be useful to future work in this space.

Weaknesses

- Some aspects of the proposed experimental setup seem quite simplistic or unrealistic for the proposed task: 1) It appears that the task of identifying "user preference" is mainly a reframing of task identification, the number of tasks in the two domains explored is small (5 summarization tasks, 4 email writing tasks). In realistic personalization scenarios I would expect a greater number of preferences. However, this drawback is likely a necessary part of initial work in this space and not a reason for rejection IMO. 2) The number of rounds in a session appears to be very high, T = 200. I understand this to be the number of times a user makes an edit to an output - its unclear if this is realistic or if one should expect CIPHER predictions for smaller T to be significantly degraded.

Questions

- Line 131, "We use cosine similarity for computing proximity..": Are the context and preference concated to obtain an embedding for computing cosine similarity? - Please consider citing work on instruction induction (https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10782 and follow ups) and discuss its differences to the proposed task and approach. - Do I understand correctly that there are 5 summarization (sub-)tasks and 4 email writing (sub-)tasks and this could be used to compute accuracy of a random predictor for the preference? - Table 2 or Fig 2: It would be meaningful to know the value of T at which maximum accuracy was reached for task/preference identification. Please consider reporting this in Table 2 or reporting the accuracy dynamics plotted against T. - ICL-edit descriptions: What does the notation y_z_t refer to? Over what corpus is this retrieval performed? Is it reasonable to think that ICL-edit would have higher performance at lower T and also need to make fewer calls to the LLM? If yes, please consider discussing this tradeoff, this would not be a slight on CIPHER. - Thinking of the task: Is it reasonable to think that some instances see a much higher edit distance than others - in these cases it would easier for the user to reword the prompt to generate a wholly new output rather than edit the output. Or an edit would amount to a complete re-write. This was noted in prior work on editing model outputs in work on speech transcription: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jbigham/pubs/pdfs/2016/asr-threshold.pdf. Did your exploration/analysis of model results spot such instances? I wonder if there is scope in future work for only inferring preferences from edits in some sessions and suggesting a prompt re-write in others. It would be meaningful to add a brief discussion of this to the paper.

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

NA

Reviewer YQaz2024-08-08

Thanks for the rebuttal by the authors. I would like to raise my score to 4, and agree to accept this paper if most of us tend to.

Reviewer Kfzn2024-08-11

Thank you

Thank you for the responses. Please be sure to incorporate your responses into the paper.

Reviewer EkvH2024-08-11

Thanks for the rebuttal which addresses most of my questions. This is to confirm that I have read the author rebuttal.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC