Self-Judge: Selective Instruction Following with Alignment Self-Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.00935v1
• Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 04:14:13 GMT
• Title: Self-Judge: Selective Instruction Following with Alignment Self-Evaluation
• Authors: Hai Ye, Hwee Tou Ng,
• Abstract summary: We study the study of selective instruction following, whereby the system declines to execute instructions if the anticipated response quality is low. We introduce Self-J, a novel self-training framework for developing judge models without needing human-annotated quality scores.
• Score: 27.69410513313001
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Pre-trained large language models (LLMs) can be tailored to adhere to human instructions through instruction tuning. However, due to shifts in the distribution of test-time data, they may not always execute instructions accurately, potentially generating factual errors or misaligned content when acting as chat assistants. To enhance the reliability of LLMs in following instructions, we propose the study of selective instruction following, whereby the system declines to execute instructions if the anticipated response quality is low. We train judge models that can predict numerical quality scores for model responses. To address data scarcity, we introduce Self-J, a novel self-training framework for developing judge models without needing human-annotated quality scores. Our method leverages the model's inherent self-evaluation capability to extract information about response quality from labeled instruction-tuning data. It incorporates a gold reference answer to facilitate self-evaluation and recalibrates by assessing the semantic similarity between the response sample and the gold reference. During the training phase, we implement self-distillation as a regularization technique to enhance the capability of reference-free estimation. To validate alignment evaluation on general instruction-following tasks, we collect large-scale high-quality instructions from Hugging Face for model training and evaluation. Extensive experiments on five open-source models show that our method correlates much more with GPT-4 than strong baselines, e.g., supervised models distilled from GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-turbo. Our analysis shows our model's strong generalization across domains. Additionally, our judge models serve as good reward models, e.g., boosting WizardLM-13B-V1.2 from 89.17 to 92.48 and from 12.03 to 15.90 in version v1 and v2 of AlpacaEval respectively using best-of-32 sampling with our judge models.

Related papers

• Direct Judgement Preference Optimization [66.83088028268318]
  We train large language models (LLMs) as generative judges to evaluate and critique other models' outputs. We employ three approaches to collect the preference pairs for different use cases, each aimed at improving our generative judge from a different perspective. Our model robustly counters inherent biases such as position and length bias, flexibly adapts to any evaluation protocol specified by practitioners, and provides helpful language feedback for improving downstream generator models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T02:08:20Z)
• Self-Taught Evaluators [77.92610887220594]
  We present an approach that aims to im-proves without human annotations, using synthetic training data only. Our Self-Taught Evaluator can improve a strong LLM from 75.4 to 88.3 on RewardBench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T17:57:02Z)
• Auditing an Automatic Grading Model with deep Reinforcement Learning [0.0]
  We explore the use of deep reinforcement learning to audit an automatic short answer grading (ASAG) model. We show that a high level of agreement to human ratings does not give sufficient evidence that an ASAG model is infallible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-11T20:07:09Z)
• QuRating: Selecting High-Quality Data for Training Language Models [64.83332850645074]
  We introduce QuRating, a method for selecting pre-training data that can capture human intuitions about data quality. In this paper, we investigate four qualities - writing style, required expertise, facts & trivia, and educational value. We train a Qur model to learn scalar ratings from pairwise judgments, and use it to annotate a 260B training corpus with quality ratings for each of the four criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T06:36:07Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resources [117.6496550359768]
  This work explores recent advances in instruction-tuning language models on a range of open instruction-following datasets. We provide a large set of instruction-tuned models from 6.7B to 65B parameters in size, trained on 12 instruction datasets. We evaluate them on their factual knowledge, reasoning, multilinguality, coding, and open-ended instruction following abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T19:59:23Z)
• Entailment as Robust Self-Learner [14.86757876218415]
  We design a prompting strategy that formulates a number of different NLU tasks as contextual entailment. We propose the Simple Pseudo-Label Editing (SimPLE) algorithm for better pseudo-labeling quality in self-training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T18:41:23Z)
• Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanations [97.91630330328815]
  We conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. We observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-17T18:29:56Z)
• Learning to Compare for Better Training and Evaluation of Open Domain Natural Language Generation Models [23.62054164511058]
  We propose to evaluate natural language generation models by learning to compare a pair of generated sentences by fine-tuning BERT. While able to be trained in a fully self-supervised fashion, our model can be further fine-tuned with a little amount of human preference annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-12T15:52:21Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.