We study off-policy learning (OPL) of contextual bandit policies in large discrete action spaces where existing methods -- most of which rely crucially on reward-regression models or importance-weighted policy gradients -- fail due to excessive bias or variance. To overcome these issues in OPL, we propose a novel two-stage algorithm, called Policy Optimization via Two-Stage Policy Decomposition (POTEC). It leverages clustering in the action space and learns two different policies via policy- and regression-based approaches, respectively. In particular, we derive a novel low-variance gradient estimator that enables to learn a first-stage policy for cluster selection efficiently via a policy-based approach. To select a specific action within the cluster sampled by the first-stage policy, POTEC uses a second-stage policy derived from a regression-based approach within each cluster. We show that a local correctness condition, which only requires that the regression model preserves the relative expected reward differences of the actions within each cluster, ensures that our policy-gradient estimator is unbiased and the second-stage policy is optimal. We also show that POTEC provides a strict generalization of policy- and regression-based approaches and their associated assumptions. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that POTEC provides substantial improvements in OPL effectiveness particularly in large and structured action spaces.

In the absence of abundant reliable annotations for challenging tasks and contexts, how can we expand the frontier of LLM capabilities with potentially wrong answers? We focus on two research questions: (1) Can LLMs generate reliable preferences among wrong options? And if so, (2) Would alignment with such wrong-over-wrong preferences be helpful? We employ methods based on self-consistency, token probabilities, and LLM-as-a-judge to elicit wrong-over-wrong preferences, and fine-tune language models with preference optimization approaches using these synthesized preferences. Extensive experiments with seven LLMs and eight datasets demonstrate that (1) LLMs do have preliminary capability in distinguishing various shades of wrong, achieving up to 20.9% higher performance than random guess; (2) Alignment with wrong-over-wrong preferences helps LLMs to produce less wrong and sometimes even outright correct answers, while improving overall model calibration. Code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/yaojh18/Varying-Shades-of-Wrong.

Abstract Abstention, the refusal of large language models (LLMs) to provide an answer, is increasingly recognized for its potential to mitigate hallucinations and enhance safety in LLM systems. In this survey, we introduce a framework to examine abstention from three perspectives: the query, the model, and human values. We organize the literature on abstention methods, benchmarks, and evaluation metrics using this framework, and discuss merits and limitations of prior work. We further identify and motivate areas for future research, such as whether abstention can be achieved as a meta-capability that transcends specific tasks or domains, and opportunities to optimize abstention abilities in specific contexts. In doing so, we aim to broaden the scope and impact of abstention methodologies in AI systems.1