Papers by Gantavya Bhatt
How much complexity does an RNN architecture need to learn syntax-sensitive dependencies? (2020.acl-srw)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Long-term memory (LSTM) networks are capable of encapsulating long-range dependencies . but simple recurrent networks (SRNs) have been less successful at capturing long-term dependencies and loci of grammatical errors in an unsupervised setting. |
| Approach: | They propose a new architecture that incorporates the decaying nature of neuronal activations and models the excitatory and inhibitory connections in a population of neurons. |
| Outcome: | The proposed architecture shows competitive performance relative to LSTMs on subject-verb agreement, sentence grammaticality, and language modeling tasks. |
An Experimental Design Framework for Label-Efficient Supervised Finetuning of Large Language Models (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Gantavya Bhatt, Yifang Chen, Arnav Das, Jifan Zhang, Sang Truong, Stephen Mussmann, Yinglun Zhu, Jeff Bilmes, Simon Du, Kevin Jamieson, Jordan Ash, Robert Nowak
| Challenge: | Supervised finetuning (SFT) on instruction datasets has shown immense potential in improving the zero-shot generalization capabilities observed in large language models (LLMs). |
| Approach: | They propose to use experimental design to minimize the computational cost of active learning by identifying useful subsets of samples to annotate from an unlabeled pool. |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods save 50% of the annotation cost compared to random sampling on generative tasks. |
Comparing Bad Apples to Good Oranges Aligning Large Language Models via Joint Preference Optimization (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies have shown that acquiring human preferences by comparing generations is not effective for large language models. |
| Approach: | They propose a preference optimization objective that elicits preferences jointly over the instruction-response pairs. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach outperforms prior preference optimizations by 5.2% and 3.3% in summarization and open-ended dialogue datasets. |