Aligning Large Language Models through Synthetic Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aligning large language models (LLMs) to human values has become increasingly important as it enables sophisticated steering of LLMs.However, it requires significant human demonstrations and feedback or distillation from proprietary LLMs such as ChatGPT.In this work, we propose a novel alignment learning framework with synthetic feedback not dependent on extensive human annotations and proprietary LLMs.First, we perform reward modeling (RM) with synthetic feedback by contrasting responses from vanilla LLMs with various sizes and prompts.Then, we use the RM to simulate high-quality demonstrations to train a supervised policy and further optimize the model with reinforcement learning.Our resulting model, Aligned Language Model with Synthetic Training dataset (ALMoST), outperforms recent open-sourced models, which are trained on the outputs of InstructGPT or humanannotated demonstrations, in alignment benchmarks.In human evaluation, our model is preferred to Alpaca and Dolly-v2, 55.0% and 58.5% of the time, respectively.Further analyses demonstrate the efficacy and importance of synthetic feedback in our framework 1 .
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".