arXiv subjects

Shubham Mehrotra

Publications and source records attributed to Shubham Mehrotra.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Co-Evolving Harnesses and Models: On-Policy Correction Helps Weaker Models Catch Up Where Imitation Fails

Agent harnesses (the system prompt, tool set, execution hooks, and context-management scaffolding around a model) are a critical determinant of agentic task success. Automated harness evolution can enable smaller models to perform well on domain-specific tasks at a fraction of frontier-model cost. Since both the harness and model weights shape behavior, we ask how harness evolution and lightweight fine-tuning should be combined. Across seven enterprise agent tasks, we first evolve a harness with the weaker model, then find that a stronger expert often uses it more effectively, suggesting expert supervision could close the remaining gap. However, training the weaker model on the expert's complete trajectories under the evolved harness backfires: performance regresses on all seven tasks by 4 to 30 points across Qwen3-Coder and Gemma 4, even though the same procedure helps under the unevolved harness. Our analysis shows that imitation transfers knowledge and increases scaffold usage, but disrupts model-harness fit: the weaker model adopts the expert's planning strategy without the competence to execute it and no longer matches the harness evolved around its native planning style. We therefore develop an on-policy expert-correction pipeline, automated by a meta-level MLE agent, that localizes the failing turn in the weaker model's own rollout and asks the expert to rewrite only that turn. This preserves the model's planning style and combines the gains of harness evolution and model adaptation. Our results identify and resolve a source of contention between harness and weight updates, yielding a compatibility-preserving recipe for economical co-evolution on domain-specific enterprise tasks.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Rate, Explain and Cite (REC): Enhanced Explanation and Attribution in Automatic Evaluation by Large Language Models

LLMs have demonstrated impressive proficiency in generating coherent and high-quality text, making them valuable across a range of text-generation tasks. However, rigorous evaluation of this generated content is crucial, as ensuring its quality remains a significant challenge due to persistent issues such as factual inaccuracies and hallucination. This paper introduces three fine-tuned general-purpose LLM autoevaluators, REC-8B, REC-12B and REC-70B, specifically designed to evaluate generated text across several dimensions: faithfulness, instruction following, coherence, and completeness. These models not only provide ratings for these metrics but also offer detailed explanation and verifiable citation, thereby enhancing trust in the content. Moreover, the models support various citation modes, accommodating different requirements for latency and granularity. Extensive evaluations on diverse benchmarks demonstrate that our general-purpose LLM auto-evaluator, REC-70B, outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs, excelling in content evaluation by delivering better quality explanation and citation with minimal bias. Our REC dataset and models are available at https://github.com/adelaidehsu/REC.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Reinforcement Learning for LLM Post-Training: A Survey

Large language models (LLMs) trained via pretraining and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) can still produce harmful and misaligned outputs, or struggle in domains like math and coding. Reinforcement learning (RL)-based post-training methods, including Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) methods like Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) approaches like PPO and GRPO, have made remarkable gains to alleviate these issues. Yet, no existing work offers a technically detailed comparison of the various methods driving this progress. In order to fill this gap, we present a timely survey that connects foundational components with latest advancements. We derive a single policy gradient framework that unifies pretraining, SFT, RLHF, and RLVR as special cases while also organizing the more recent techniques therein. The main contributions of our survey are as follows: (1) a self-contained introduction to MLE, RLHF, and RLVR foundations and the unified policy gradient framework; (2) detailed technical analysis of PPO- and GRPO-based methods alongside offline and iterative DPO approaches, decomposed along prompt sampling, response sampling, and gradient coefficient axes; (3) standardized notation enabling direct cross-method comparison; and (4) comprehensive comparison of implementation details and empirical results of each method in the appendix. We aim to serve as a technically grounded reference for researchers and practitioners working on LLM post-training.

cs.CL↗