Moontae Lee
Publications
A Regret Minimization Framework on Preference Learning in Large Language Models
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has enabled progress on reasoning-intensive tasks by relying on task-specific verifiers that provide automated correctness signals. However, many realistic language tasks are difficult to equip with reliable verifiers, motivating a growing reliance on reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). In this setting, we argue that a closer examination of how human feedback should be interpreted is essential. We introduce Regret-based Preference Optimization $(\textbf{RePO})$, which reframes RLHF through $\textit{regret minimization}$ rather than reward maximization. Human preferences are often shaped by $\textit{prospective}$ anticipation of outcomes and $\textit{counterfactual}$ comparisons to alternative behaviors, rather than by immediate, outcome-independent utility. $\textbf{RePO}$ captures this structure by modeling preferences as behavior-conditioned assessments of relative suboptimality. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks and human preference datasets demonstrate consistent performance gains, indicating that $\textbf{RePO}$ is an effective and human-aligned approach for training large language models.
Early Decisions Matter: Proximity Bias and Initial Trajectory Shaping in Non-Autoregressive Diffusion Language Models
Diffusion-based language models (dLLMs) have emerged as a promising alternative to autoregressive language models, offering the potential for parallel token generation and bidirectional context modeling. However, harnessing this flexibility for fully non-autoregressive decoding remains an open question, particularly for reasoning and planning tasks. In this work, we investigate non-autoregressive decoding in dLLMs by systematically analyzing its inference dynamics along the temporal axis. Specifically, we uncover an inherent failure mode in confidence-based non-autoregressive generation stemming from a strong proximity bias-the tendency for the denoising order to concentrate on spatially adjacent tokens. This local dependency leads to spatial error propagation, rendering the entire trajectory critically contingent on the initial unmasking position. Leveraging this insight, we present a minimal-intervention approach that guides early token selection, employing a lightweight planner and end-of-sequence temperature annealing. We thoroughly evaluate our method on various reasoning and planning tasks and observe substantial overall improvement over existing heuristic baselines without significant computational overhead.
Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance, particularly in non-verifiable settings where judgments rely on agent trajectories including chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. This paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's CoT faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state. We show this assumption is brittle: LLM judges are highly susceptible to manipulation of agent reasoning traces. By systematically rewriting agent CoTs while holding actions and observations fixed, we demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks. We study manipulation strategies spanning style-based approaches that alter only the presentation of reasoning and content-based approaches that fabricate signals of task progress, and find that content-based manipulations are consistently more effective. We evaluate prompting-based techniques and scaling judge-time compute, which reduce but do not fully eliminate susceptibility to manipulation. Our findings reveal a fundamental vulnerability in LLM-based evaluation and highlight the need for judging mechanisms that verify reasoning claims against observable evidence.
Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance, particularly in non-verifiable settings where judgments rely on agent trajectories including chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. This paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's CoT faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state. We show this assumption is brittle: LLM judges are highly susceptible to manipulation of agent reasoning traces. By systematically rewriting agent CoTs while holding actions and observations fixed, we demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks. We study manipulation strategies spanning style-based approaches that alter only the presentation of reasoning and content-based approaches that fabricate signals of task progress, and find that content-based manipulations are consistently more effective. We evaluate prompting-based techniques and scaling judge-time compute, which reduce but do not fully eliminate susceptibility to manipulation. Our findings reveal a fundamental vulnerability in LLM-based evaluation and highlight the need for judging mechanisms that verify reasoning claims against observable evidence.