Challenges and Future Directions of Data-Centric AI Alignment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01957v2
• Date: Thu, 01 May 2025 17:40:14 GMT
• Title: Challenges and Future Directions of Data-Centric AI Alignment
• Authors: Min-Hsuan Yeh, Jeffrey Wang, Xuefeng Du, Seongheon Park, Leitian Tao, Shawn Im, Yixuan Li,
• Abstract summary: Current alignment methods primarily focus on designing algorithms and loss functions but often underestimate the crucial role of data.<n>This paper advocates for a shift towards data-centric AI alignment, emphasizing the need to enhance the quality and representativeness of data used in aligning AI systems.
• Score: 22.165745901158804
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As AI systems become increasingly capable and influential, ensuring their alignment with human values, preferences, and goals has become a critical research focus. Current alignment methods primarily focus on designing algorithms and loss functions but often underestimate the crucial role of data. This paper advocates for a shift towards data-centric AI alignment, emphasizing the need to enhance the quality and representativeness of data used in aligning AI systems. In this position paper, we highlight key challenges associated with both human-based and AI-based feedback within the data-centric alignment framework. Through qualitative analysis, we identify multiple sources of unreliability in human feedback, as well as problems related to temporal drift, context dependence, and AI-based feedback failing to capture human values due to inherent model limitations. We propose future research directions, including improved feedback collection practices, robust data-cleaning methodologies, and rigorous feedback verification processes. We call for future research into these critical directions to ensure, addressing gaps that persist in understanding and improving data-centric alignment practices.

Related papers

• Quality Matters: Evaluating Synthetic Data for Tool-Using LLMs [11.24476329991465]
  Training large language models (LLMs) for external tool usage is a rapidly expanding field. The absence of systematic data quality checks poses complications for properly training and testing models. We propose two approaches for assessing the reliability of data for training LLMs to use external tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T17:20:02Z)
• To Err Is AI! Debugging as an Intervention to Facilitate Appropriate Reliance on AI Systems [11.690126756498223]
  Vision for optimal human-AI collaboration requires 'appropriate reliance' of humans on AI systems. In practice, the performance disparity of machine learning models on out-of-distribution data makes dataset-specific performance feedback unreliable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T09:43:27Z)
• Towards Explainable Automated Data Quality Enhancement without Domain Knowledge [0.0]
  We propose a comprehensive framework designed to automatically assess and rectify data quality issues in any given dataset. Our primary objective is to address three fundamental types of defects: absence, redundancy, and incoherence. We adopt a hybrid approach that integrates statistical methods with machine learning algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-16T10:08:05Z)
• Survey and Taxonomy: The Role of Data-Centric AI in Transformer-Based Time Series Forecasting [36.31269406067809]
  We argue that data-centric AI is essential for training AI models, particularly for transformer-based TSF models efficiently. We review the previous research works from a data-centric AI perspective and we intend to lay the foundation work for the future development of transformer-based architecture and data-centric AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T08:27:21Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models from Self-Reference AI Feedback with one General Principle [61.105703857868775]
  We propose a self-reference-based AI feedback framework that enables a 13B Llama2-Chat to provide high-quality feedback. Specifically, we allow the AI to first respond to the user's instructions, then generate criticism of other answers based on its own response as a reference. Finally, we determine which answer better fits human preferences according to the criticism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T03:51:46Z)
• Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions [101.67121669727354]
  Recent advancements in AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment. The lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment. We introduce a systematic review of over 400 papers published between 2019 and January 2024, spanning multiple domains such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Towards Faithful and Robust LLM Specialists for Evidence-Based Question-Answering [10.624293689624151]
  We investigate how to robustly fine-tune Large Language Models (LLMs) for better source quality and answer attributability. Specifically, we introduce a data generation pipeline with automated data quality filters, which can synthesize diversified high-quality training and testing data at scale. Extensive evaluation shows that fine-tuning on synthetic data improves performance on both in- and out-of-distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T08:12:48Z)
• Improving Machine Translation with Human Feedback: An Exploration of Quality Estimation as a Reward Model [75.66013048128302]
  In this work, we investigate the potential of employing the QE model as the reward model to predict human preferences for feedback training. We first identify the overoptimization problem during QE-based feedback training, manifested as an increase in reward while translation quality declines. To address the problem, we adopt a simple yet effective method that uses rules to detect the incorrect translations and assigns a penalty term to the reward scores of them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T16:07:43Z)
• CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation [87.44350003888646]
  Eval-Instruct can acquire pointwise grading critiques with pseudo references and revise these critiques via multi-path prompting. CritiqueLLM is empirically shown to outperform ChatGPT and all the open-source baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T16:52:42Z)
• 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)
• TRIAGE: Characterizing and auditing training data for improved regression [80.11415390605215]
  We introduce TRIAGE, a novel data characterization framework tailored to regression tasks and compatible with a broad class of regressors. TRIAGE utilizes conformal predictive distributions to provide a model-agnostic scoring method, the TRIAGE score. We show that TRIAGE's characterization is consistent and highlight its utility to improve performance via data sculpting/filtering, in multiple regression settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-29T10:31:59Z)
• On Responsible Machine Learning Datasets with Fairness, Privacy, and Regulatory Norms [56.119374302685934]
  There have been severe concerns over the trustworthiness of AI technologies. Machine and deep learning algorithms depend heavily on the data used during their development. We propose a framework to evaluate the datasets through a responsible rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T14:01:53Z)
• Constructive Large Language Models Alignment with Diverse Feedback [76.9578950893839]
  We introduce Constructive and Diverse Feedback (CDF) as a novel method to enhance large language models alignment. We exploit critique feedback for easy problems, refinement feedback for medium problems, and preference feedback for hard problems. By training our model with this diversified feedback, we achieve enhanced alignment performance while using less training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T09:20:14Z)
• Calibrating LLM-Based Evaluator [92.17397504834825]
  We propose AutoCalibrate, a multi-stage, gradient-free approach to calibrate and align an LLM-based evaluator toward human preference. Instead of explicitly modeling human preferences, we first implicitly encompass them within a set of human labels. Our experiments on multiple text quality evaluation datasets illustrate a significant improvement in correlation with expert evaluation through calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-23T08:46:11Z)
• RLBoost: Boosting Supervised Models using Deep Reinforcement Learning [0.0]
  We present RLBoost, an algorithm that uses deep reinforcement learning strategies to evaluate a particular dataset and obtain a model capable of estimating the quality of any new data. The results of the article show that this model obtains better and more stable results than other state-of-the-art algorithms such as LOO, DataShapley or DVRL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T14:38:33Z)
• Human-Centric Multimodal Machine Learning: Recent Advances and Testbed on AI-based Recruitment [66.91538273487379]
  There is a certain consensus about the need to develop AI applications with a Human-Centric approach. Human-Centric Machine Learning needs to be developed based on four main requirements: (i) utility and social good; (ii) privacy and data ownership; (iii) transparency and accountability; and (iv) fairness in AI-driven decision-making processes. We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T16:44:44Z)
• Methodological reflections for AI alignment research using human feedback [0.0]
  AI alignment aims to investigate whether AI technologies align with human interests and values and function in a safe and ethical manner. LLMs have the potential to exhibit unintended behavior due to their ability to learn and adapt in ways that are difficult to predict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-22T14:27:33Z)
• D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
  We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z)
• Reinforcement Learning with Heterogeneous Data: Estimation and Inference [84.72174994749305]
  We introduce the K-Heterogeneous Markov Decision Process (K-Hetero MDP) to address sequential decision problems with population heterogeneity. We propose the Auto-Clustered Policy Evaluation (ACPE) for estimating the value of a given policy, and the Auto-Clustered Policy Iteration (ACPI) for estimating the optimal policy in a given policy class. We present simulations to support our theoretical findings, and we conduct an empirical study on the standard MIMIC-III dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-31T20:58:47Z)
• Exploring the Efficacy of Automatically Generated Counterfactuals for Sentiment Analysis [17.811597734603144]
  We propose an approach to automatically generating counterfactual data for data augmentation and explanation. A comprehensive evaluation on several different datasets and using a variety of state-of-the-art benchmarks demonstrate how our approach can achieve significant improvements in model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-29T10:27:01Z)
• Towards Handling Uncertainty-at-Source in AI -- A Review and Next Steps for Interval Regression [6.166295570030645]
  This paper focuses on linear regression for interval-valued data as a recent growth area. We conduct an in-depth analysis of state-of-the-art methods, elucidating their behaviour, advantages, and pitfalls when applied to datasets with different properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-15T05:31:10Z)

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.