📝 SummarXiv

Abstract

Although large language models (LLMs) have become more capable and accurate across many tasks, some fundamental sources of unreliability remain in their behavior. One key limitation is their inconsistency at reporting the same information when prompts are changed. In this paper, we consider the discrepancy between a model's generated answer and their own verification of that answer, the generator-validator gap. We define this gap in a more stringent way than prior work: we expect correlation of scores from a generator and a validator over the entire set of candidate answers, i.e., candidate completions that could possibly arise during ordinary language use without breaking Gricean norms. We show that according to this measure, a large gap exists in various settings, including question answering, lexical semantics tasks, and next-word prediction. We then propose RankAlign, a ranking-based training method, and show that it significantly closes the gap, surpassing all baseline methods. Moreover, this approach generalizes well to out-of-domain tasks and lexical items.