LLM Alignment as Retriever Optimization: An Information Retrieval Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence with capabilities in reasoning, coding, and communication, driving innovation across industries. Their true potential depends on effective alignment to ensure correct, trustworthy and ethical behavior, addressing challenges like misinformation, hallucinations, bias and misuse. While existing Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based alignment methods are notoriously complex, direct optimization approaches offer a simpler alternative. In this work, we introduce a novel direct optimization approach for LLM alignment by drawing on established Information Retrieval (IR) principles. We present a systematic framework that bridges LLM alignment and IR methodologies, mapping LLM generation and reward models to IR's retriever-reranker paradigm. Building on this foundation, we propose LLM Alignment as Retriever Preference Optimization (LarPO), a new alignment method that enhances overall alignment quality. Extensive experiments validate LarPO's effectiveness with 38.9 % and 13.7 % averaged improvement on AlpacaEval2 and MixEval-Hard respectively. Our work opens new avenues for advancing LLM alignment by integrating IR foundations, offering a promising direction for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".