arxiv: 2403.07691 · v2 · submitted 2024-03-12 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

ORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model

Jiwoo Hong , Noah Lee , James Thorne

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 09:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AI

keywords ORPOpreference optimizationsupervised fine-tuninglanguage model alignmentodds ratioreference-freeUltraFeedback

0 comments

The pith

A simple odds-ratio penalty during supervised fine-tuning suffices to align language models without any reference model or separate alignment stage.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper demonstrates that preference alignment can be achieved by incorporating a minor penalty for disfavored responses using the odds ratio directly into the supervised fine-tuning loss. This monolithic ORPO approach removes the need for a separate preference optimization phase and a reference model altogether. By fine-tuning models such as Phi-2, Llama-2, and Mistral on the UltraFeedback dataset with ORPO, the resulting models outperform state-of-the-art language models that have more parameters on key benchmarks including AlpacaEval 2.0, IFEval, and MT-Bench. A sympathetic reader would care because this simplifies the entire alignment process into one step while achieving competitive or better results. The method is shown to work across model sizes from 125 million to 7 billion parameters.

Core claim

ORPO is a monolithic preference optimization algorithm that uses the odds ratio to contrast favored and disfavored generation styles within the supervised fine-tuning objective, eliminating the need for an additional alignment phase or reference model.

What carries the argument

The odds ratio applied as a penalty term to disfavored responses in the SFT loss, which provides contrast between preferred and non-preferred outputs.

If this is right

Fine-tuning 7B models with ORPO on UltraFeedback alone surpasses larger models on AlpacaEval 2.0 up to 12.20%.
The approach achieves 66.19% on IFEval instruction-level loose and 7.32 on MT-Bench.
ORPO is effective for models from 125M to 7B parameters.
Code and checkpoints for Mistral-ORPO models are publicly released.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

This method could make aligning language models more accessible by reducing training complexity and compute requirements.
The effectiveness of a simple penalty suggests that reference models in other alignment methods like DPO may not be strictly necessary.
Applying ORPO to other preference datasets or model architectures could be a straightforward extension to test.

Load-bearing premise

The odds ratio is a sensible choice for contrasting favored and disfavored generation styles, and a minor penalty is sufficient to achieve preference alignment during supervised fine-tuning.

What would settle it

If a model fine-tuned with standard supervised fine-tuning without the odds ratio penalty performs equally well or better than ORPO on the UltraFeedback dataset across the reported benchmarks, the central claim would be falsified.

read the original abstract

While recent preference alignment algorithms for language models have demonstrated promising results, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) remains imperative for achieving successful convergence. In this paper, we study the crucial role of SFT within the context of preference alignment, emphasizing that a minor penalty for the disfavored generation style is sufficient for preference-aligned SFT. Building on this foundation, we introduce a straightforward and innovative reference model-free monolithic odds ratio preference optimization algorithm, ORPO, eliminating the necessity for an additional preference alignment phase. We demonstrate, both empirically and theoretically, that the odds ratio is a sensible choice for contrasting favored and disfavored styles during SFT across the diverse sizes from 125M to 7B. Specifically, fine-tuning Phi-2 (2.7B), Llama-2 (7B), and Mistral (7B) with ORPO on the UltraFeedback alone surpasses the performance of state-of-the-art language models with more than 7B and 13B parameters: achieving up to 12.20% on $\text{AlpacaEval}_{2.0}$ (Figure 1), 66.19% on IFEval (instruction-level loose, Table 6), and 7.32 in MT-Bench (Figure 12). We release code and model checkpoints for Mistral-ORPO-$\alpha$ (7B) and Mistral-ORPO-$\beta$ (7B).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

ORPO folds preference alignment into SFT with an odds ratio penalty and no reference model, showing small models beating larger ones on UltraFeedback, but the gains need a plain SFT ablation to confirm the new term matters.

read the letter

Hi colleague, ORPO combines supervised fine-tuning with a preference term in one loss by using the odds ratio to apply a minor penalty to disfavored responses. This removes the separate alignment stage and reference model that DPO and RLHF require. The paper reports that fine-tuning Phi-2 at 2.7B, Llama-2 at 7B, and Mistral at 7B on UltraFeedback alone beats larger state-of-the-art models on AlpacaEval 2.0, IFEval, and MT-Bench. They also release code and the Mistral-ORPO checkpoints, which is useful for direct checks. The framing as a first-principles contrast choice rather than an ad-hoc addition is a clean angle, and the results span model sizes from 125M to 7B. The main soft spot is the missing ablation. A direct comparison of ORPO against standard cross-entropy SFT on the exact same preferred responses, data splits, and hyperparameters would show whether the odds ratio term drives the gains or whether the data and training setup already do most of the work. The abstract asserts both empirical and theoretical support, but without seeing the full derivation or controls for evaluation fairness, the robustness is still open. Hyperparameter sensitivity around the penalty weight also looks worth more detail. This work is aimed at practitioners who want simpler pipelines for aligning smaller open models. A reader focused on efficient fine-tuning would find the numbers and released artifacts worth examining. It deserves a serious referee to verify the baselines and the theoretical justification. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ORPO, a monolithic preference optimization algorithm that integrates supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with an odds-ratio-based penalty on disfavored responses, eliminating the need for a reference model or separate alignment stage. It claims that a minor penalty for disfavored styles during SFT is sufficient for preference alignment, and demonstrates this by fine-tuning Phi-2 (2.7B), Llama-2 (7B), and Mistral (7B) on UltraFeedback alone, achieving up to 12.20% on AlpacaEval 2.0, 66.19% on IFEval (instruction-level loose), and 7.32 on MT-Bench, surpassing larger SOTA models.

Significance. If the central claim holds, ORPO would simplify preference alignment by collapsing it into a single SFT-like phase without reference models, offering efficiency gains and strong empirical performance on standard benchmarks with models as small as 2.7B. The release of code and checkpoints for Mistral-ORPO variants adds reproducibility value.

major comments (3)

[Empirical Evaluation] Empirical results (Table 6, Figure 1, Figure 12): the headline claim that ORPO enables 2.7B–7B models to surpass larger SOTA models after UltraFeedback training requires evidence that the odds-ratio penalty drives the gains. No ablation is reported replacing the ORPO loss with standard cross-entropy SFT on the identical preferred responses, data splits, and hyperparameters; without this control, it remains unclear whether the monolithic odds-ratio term is load-bearing or if vanilla SFT already suffices.
[Theoretical Analysis] Theoretical justification (abstract and §3): the assertion that the odds ratio is a sensible choice for contrasting favored and disfavored generation styles during SFT, with only a minor penalty needed, is stated but lacks an explicit derivation showing why this formulation avoids the need for a reference model while still achieving preference alignment. The reduction of the final loss to the claimed parameter-free property should be shown step-by-step.
[Experimental Setup] Hyperparameter and evaluation controls (Table 6 and experimental setup): details on the exact penalty weight for disfavored responses, its selection procedure, and safeguards against data leakage or evaluation contamination on UltraFeedback are insufficient to support the cross-model-size claims.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'up to 12.20%' on AlpacaEval 2.0 should specify which exact model and variant achieves this score for clarity.
[Method] Notation: the precise mathematical form of the ORPO loss (SFT term plus odds-ratio penalty) should be written explicitly with all variables defined before the empirical sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive comments. We address each major point below and commit to revisions that strengthen the empirical, theoretical, and experimental sections without misrepresenting the current manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Empirical Evaluation] Empirical results (Table 6, Figure 1, Figure 12): the headline claim that ORPO enables 2.7B–7B models to surpass larger SOTA models after UltraFeedback training requires evidence that the odds-ratio penalty drives the gains. No ablation is reported replacing the ORPO loss with standard cross-entropy SFT on the identical preferred responses, data splits, and hyperparameters; without this control, it remains unclear whether the monolithic odds-ratio term is load-bearing or if vanilla SFT already suffices.

Authors: We agree that an explicit ablation replacing the ORPO loss with standard cross-entropy SFT on the exact same preferred responses, data splits, and hyperparameters would provide clearer evidence that the odds-ratio term is responsible for the observed gains. While the manuscript already includes comparisons against other preference methods and the theoretical analysis, this control experiment is a valuable addition. We will include the requested ablation in the revised version, reporting the performance delta on AlpacaEval 2.0, IFEval, and MT-Bench. revision: yes
Referee: [Theoretical Analysis] Theoretical justification (abstract and §3): the assertion that the odds ratio is a sensible choice for contrasting favored and disfavored generation styles during SFT, with only a minor penalty needed, is stated but lacks an explicit derivation showing why this formulation avoids the need for a reference model while still achieving preference alignment. The reduction of the final loss to the claimed parameter-free property should be shown step-by-step.

Authors: Section 3 derives the ORPO loss by expressing the odds ratio between the preferred and dispreferred responses and folding it into the SFT objective. To address the request for greater clarity, we will expand this section with a fully expanded, step-by-step derivation that explicitly shows how reference-model terms cancel, yielding a reference-free loss, and why the resulting penalty on disfavored styles remains small yet sufficient for alignment. revision: yes
Referee: [Experimental Setup] Hyperparameter and evaluation controls (Table 6 and experimental setup): details on the exact penalty weight for disfavored responses, its selection procedure, and safeguards against data leakage or evaluation contamination on UltraFeedback are insufficient to support the cross-model-size claims.

Authors: We will augment the experimental setup section with the precise value of the penalty weight λ used for each model, the grid-search procedure performed on a held-out validation split to select λ, and explicit statements confirming that training and evaluation data were deduplicated to prevent leakage or contamination from UltraFeedback. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in ORPO derivation chain

full rationale

The paper defines the ORPO loss explicitly as a combination of standard SFT cross-entropy on preferred responses plus a weighted penalty term based on the log-odds ratio between preferred and disfavored responses. This formulation is presented as a direct consequence of analyzing the odds-ratio property for contrasting generation styles, without reducing the loss definition or the reported performance numbers (AlpacaEval, IFEval, MT-Bench) back to fitted constants or target metrics by construction. No self-citation chain is used to justify the core odds-ratio choice as a uniqueness theorem; the theoretical argument is developed internally from probability properties. Empirical results are shown as outcomes after training on UltraFeedback rather than inputs that define the method. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not collapse any load-bearing step to a tautology or prior self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that odds ratio provides an effective contrast during SFT and that a small penalty suffices; one free parameter (the penalty weight) is implied but not quantified in the abstract.

free parameters (1)

penalty weight for disfavored responses
Described as a minor penalty sufficient for alignment; its exact value is a tunable hyperparameter whose selection affects the final performance.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Odds ratio is a sensible metric for contrasting favored versus disfavored generation styles in language model fine-tuning
Explicitly stated as the foundation for the ORPO loss.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5555 in / 1254 out tokens · 31223 ms · 2026-05-16T09:29:41.816743+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Cost.FunctionalEquation washburn_uniqueness_aczel (J is unique under symmetry+convexity+calibration) echoes

?

echoes
ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

We introduce a straightforward and innovative reference model-free monolithic odds ratio preference optimization algorithm, ORPO... L_ORPO = L_SFT + λ · L_OR where L_OR = -log σ(log odds_θ(y_w|x)/odds_θ(y_l|x))
Foundation.HierarchyEmergence hierarchy_emergence_forces_phi unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

fine-tuning Phi-2 (2.7B), Llama-2 (7B), and Mistral (7B) with ORPO on the UltraFeedback alone surpasses the performance of state-of-the-art language models with more than 7B and 13B parameters

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 24 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

TokenRatio: Principled Token-Level Preference Optimization via Ratio Matching
cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

TBPO posits a token-level Bradley-Terry model and derives a Bregman-divergence density-ratio matching loss that generalizes DPO while preserving token-level optimality.
Block-R1: Rethinking the Role of Block Size in Multi-domain Reinforcement Learning for Diffusion Large Language Models
cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

Block-R1 formulates domain block size conflicts in multi-domain RL for dLLMs, releases a 41K-sample dataset with per-sample best block sizes and a conflict score, and provides a benchmark plus simple cross-domain trai...
Block-R1: Rethinking the Role of Block Size in Multi-domain Reinforcement Learning for Diffusion Large Language Models
cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

Introduces Block-R1 benchmark, Block-R1-41K dataset, and a conflict score to handle domain-specific optimal block sizes in RL post-training of diffusion LLMs.
Offline Preference Optimization for Rectified Flow with Noise-Tracked Pairs
cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

PNAPO augments preference data with prior noise pairs and uses straight-line interpolation to create a tighter surrogate objective for offline alignment of rectified flow models.
Rethinking Importance Sampling in LLM Policy Optimization: A Cumulative Token Perspective
cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

The cumulative token IS ratio gives unbiased prefix correction and lower variance than full-sequence ratios for token-level gradients in LLM policy optimization, enabling CTPO to outperform GRPO and GSPO baselines on ...
HopRank: Self-Supervised LLM Preference-Tuning on Graphs for Few-Shot Node Classification
cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

HopRank is a self-supervised LLM-tuning method that turns node classification into link prediction via hierarchical hop-based preference sampling, matching supervised GNN performance with zero labeled data on text-att...
DDO-RM: Distribution-Level Policy Improvement after Reward Learning
stat.ML 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

DDO-RM turns reward scores into a target distribution and applies KL-regularized mirror-descent projection on finite candidates to improve policies, outperforming DPO on Pythia-410M.
Magpie: Alignment Data Synthesis from Scratch by Prompting Aligned LLMs with Nothing
cs.CL 2024-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

Magpie synthesizes 300K high-quality alignment instructions from Llama-3-Instruct via auto-regressive prompting on partial templates, enabling fine-tuned models to match official instruct performance on AlpacaEval, Ar...
KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization
cs.LG 2024-02 conditional novelty 7.0

KTO aligns LLMs by directly maximizing prospect-theoretic utility on binary signals and matches or exceeds preference-based methods like DPO from 1B to 30B parameters.
TokenRatio: Principled Token-Level Preference Optimization via Ratio Matching
cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

TBPO derives a token-level preference optimization objective from sequence-level pairwise data via Bregman divergence ratio matching that generalizes DPO and improves alignment quality.
HTPO: Towards Exploration-Exploitation Balanced Policy Optimization via Hierarchical Token-level Objective Control
cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

HTPO introduces hierarchical token-level objective control in RLVR to balance exploration and exploitation by grouping tokens according to difficulty, correctness, and entropy, yielding up to 8.6% gains on AIME benchm...
RLearner-LLM: Balancing Logical Grounding and Fluency in Large Language Models via Hybrid Direct Preference Optimization
cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

RLearner-LLM's Hybrid-DPO fuses DeBERTa NLI and LLM verifier scores to deliver up to 6x higher NLI entailment than standard SFT while preserving answer coverage across academic domains.
RLearner-LLM: Balancing Logical Grounding and Fluency in Large Language Models via Hybrid Direct Preference Optimization
cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

RLearner-LLM achieves up to 6x gains in NLI entailment over standard fine-tuning by using an automated hybrid DPO pipeline that balances logic and fluency across multiple model sizes and domains.
Anomaly-Preference Image Generation
cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Anomaly Preference Optimization reformulates anomalous image synthesis as preference learning with implicit alignment from real anomalies and a time-aware capacity allocation module for diffusion models to balance div...
PERSA: Reinforcement Learning for Professor-Style Personalized Feedback with LLMs
cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

PERSA combines RLHF with selective parameter-efficient updates to top transformer layers, raising style alignment scores from 35% to 96% on code feedback benchmarks while holding correctness near 100%.
Representation-Guided Parameter-Efficient LLM Unlearning
cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

REGLU guides LoRA-based unlearning via representation subspaces and orthogonal regularization to outperform prior methods on forget-retain trade-off in LLM benchmarks.
PhyMix: Towards Physically Consistent Single-Image 3D Indoor Scene Generation with Implicit--Explicit Optimization
cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

PhyMix unifies a new multi-aspect physics evaluator with implicit policy optimization and explicit test-time correction to produce single-image 3D indoor scenes that are both visually faithful and physically plausible.
Enhancing the Reasoning Ability of Multimodal Large Language Models via Mixed Preference Optimization
cs.CL 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0

Mixed Preference Optimization with the MMPR dataset boosts multimodal CoT reasoning, lifting InternVL2-8B to 67.0 accuracy on MathVista (+8.7 points) and matching the 76B model.
YFPO: A Preliminary Study of Yoked Feature Preference Optimization with Neuron-Guided Rewards for Mathematical Reasoning
cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

YFPO augments standard preference optimization with neuron-level activation margins from math-related features to improve LLM reasoning on math tasks.
A Unified Pair-GRPO Family: From Implicit to Explicit Preference Constraints for Stable and General RL Alignment
cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

A unified Pair-GRPO framework extends GRPO with soft and hard pairwise preference variants, proving gradient equivalence under Taylor expansion and delivering improved stability and performance in RLHF.
RLearner-LLM: Balancing Logical Grounding and Fluency in Large Language Models via Hybrid Direct Preference Optimization
cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Hybrid-DPO combining NLI and verifier scores delivers up to 6x NLI improvement over SFT baselines across multiple LLMs and domains while preserving answer coverage and inference speed.
PoliLegalLM: A Technical Report on a Large Language Model for Political and Legal Affairs
cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

PoliLegalLM, trained with continued pretraining, progressive SFT, and preference RL on a legal corpus, outperforms similar-scale models on LawBench, LexEval, and a real-world PoliLegal dataset while staying competitiv...
LlamaFactory: Unified Efficient Fine-Tuning of 100+ Language Models
cs.CL 2024-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

LlamaFactory provides a unified no-code framework for efficient fine-tuning of 100+ LLMs via an integrated web UI and has been released on GitHub.
LLMOrbit: A Circular Taxonomy of Large Language Models -From Scaling Walls to Agentic AI Systems
cs.LG 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 3.0

A survey taxonomy of LLMs identifies three scaling crises and six efficiency paradigms while tracing the shift from generation to tool-using agents.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

291 extracted references · 291 canonical work pages · cited by 20 Pith papers · 25 internal anchors

[2]

Ebtesam Almazrouei, Hamza Alobeidli, Abdulaziz Alshamsi, Alessandro Cappelli, Ruxandra Cojocaru, Mérouane Debbah, Étienne Goffinet, Daniel Hesslow, Julien Launay, Quentin Malartic, Daniele Mazzotta, Badreddine Noune, Baptiste Pannier, and Guilherme Penedo. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.16867 The falcon series of open language models

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023
[3]

Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Mark Rowland, Bilal Piot, Daniel Guo, Daniele Calandriello, Michal Valko, and Rémi Munos. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.12036 A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human preferences

work page arXiv 2023
[4]

Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Nicholas Joseph, Saurav Kadavath, Jackson Kernion, Tom Conerly, Sheer El-Showk, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Tristan Hume, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Liane Lovitt, Neel Nanda, Catherine Olsson, ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[5]

Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback

Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, Carol Chen, Catherine Olsson, Christopher Olah, Danny Hernandez, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Dustin Li, Eli Tran-Johnson, Ethan Perez, Jamie Kerr, Jared Mueller, Jeffrey Ladish, Joshua Landau, Kamal Ndousse, K...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[6]

Alvaro Bartolome, Gabriel Martin, and Daniel Vila. 2023. Notus. https://github.com/argilla-io/notus

work page 2023
[7]

Edward Beeching, Clémentine Fourrier, Nathan Habib, Sheon Han, Nathan Lambert, Nazneen Rajani, Omar Sanseviero, Lewis Tunstall, and Thomas Wolf. 2023. Open llm leaderboard. https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderboard

work page 2023
[8]

Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry. 1952. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2334029 Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons . Biometrika, 39(3/4):324--345

work page arXiv 1952
[9]

Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gr...

work page 2020
[10]

Tianchi Cai, Xierui Song, Jiyan Jiang, Fei Teng, Jinjie Gu, and Guannan Zhang. 2023. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:265659430 Ulma: Unified language model alignment with demonstration and point-wise human preference . ArXiv, abs/2312.02554

work page arXiv 2023
[11]

Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, Alina Oprea, and Colin Raffel. 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.07805 Extracting training data from large language models

work page arXiv 2021
[12]

Weixin Chen and Bo Li. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12292 Grath: Gradual self-truthifying for large language models

work page arXiv 2024
[13]

Qinyuan Cheng, Tianxiang Sun, Xiangyang Liu, Wenwei Zhang, Zhangyue Yin, Shimin Li, Linyang Li, Kai Chen, and Xipeng Qiu. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13275 Can ai assistants know what they don't know?

work page arXiv 2024
[14]

Tri Dao. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.08691 Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[15]

Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14314 Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[16]

Ning Ding, Yulin Chen, Bokai Xu, Yujia Qin, Zhi Zheng, Shengding Hu, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Bowen Zhou. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14233 Enhancing chat language models by scaling high-quality instructional conversations

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[17]

Guanting Dong, Hongyi Yuan, Keming Lu, Chengpeng Li, Mingfeng Xue, Dayiheng Liu, Wei Wang, Zheng Yuan, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.05492 How abilities in large language models are affected by supervised fine-tuning data composition

work page arXiv 2024
[19]

Leo Gao, John Schulman, and Jacob Hilton. 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.10760 Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization

work page arXiv 2022
[21]

Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.301 R eal T oxicity P rompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3356--3369, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.301 2020
[23]

Aaron Gokaslan and Vanya Cohen. 2019. Openwebtext corpus. http://Skylion007.github.io/OpenWebTextCorpus

work page 2019
[24]

Alexey Gorbatovski and Sergey Kovalchuk. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10882 Reinforcement learning for question answering in programming domain using public community scoring as a human feedback

work page arXiv 2024
[25]

Hamish Haggerty and Rohitash Chandra. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.00692 Self-supervised learning for skin cancer diagnosis with limited training data

work page arXiv 2024
[26]

Mojan Javaheripi and Sébastien Bubeck. 2023. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/phi-2-the-surprising-power-of-small-language-models/ Phi-2: The surprising power of small language models

work page 2023
[27]

Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas Wang, Timothée Lacroix, and William El Sayed. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[28]

Robert Kirk, Ishita Mediratta, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Jelena Luketina, Eric Hambro, Edward Grefenstette, and Roberta Raileanu. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06452 Understanding the effects of rlhf on llm generalisation and diversity

work page arXiv 2024
[29]

Harrison Lee, Samrat Phatale, Hassan Mansoor, Thomas Mesnard, Johan Ferret, Kellie Lu, Colton Bishop, Ethan Hall, Victor Carbune, Abhinav Rastogi, and Sushant Prakash. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00267 Rlaif: Scaling reinforcement learning from human feedback with ai feedback

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[30]

Margaret Li, Stephen Roller, Ilia Kulikov, Sean Welleck, Y-Lan Boureau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Jason Weston. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.428 Don ' t say that! making inconsistent dialogue unlikely with unlikelihood training . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4715--4728, Onlin...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.428 2020
[31]

Xian Li, Ping Yu, Chunting Zhou, Timo Schick, Luke Zettlemoyer, Omer Levy, Jason Weston, and Mike Lewis. 2023 a . http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06259 Self-alignment with instruction backtranslation

work page arXiv 2023
[32]

Hashimoto

Xuechen Li, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023 b . Alpacaeval: An automatic evaluator of instruction-following models. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/alpaca_eval

work page 2023
[33]

Yuanzhi Li, Sébastien Bubeck, Ronen Eldan, Allie Del Giorno, Suriya Gunasekar, and Yin Tat Lee. 2023 c . http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.05463 Textbooks are all you need ii: phi-1.5 technical report

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[34]

Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Doll \'a r. 2017. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2980--2988

work page 2017
[35]

Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101 Decoupled weight decay regularization

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[36]

Anqi Mao, Mehryar Mohri, and Yutao Zhong. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.07288 Cross-entropy loss functions: Theoretical analysis and applications

work page arXiv 2023
[37]

Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.02155 Training language models to fo...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[38]

Jing-Cheng Pang, Pengyuan Wang, Kaiyuan Li, Xiong-Hui Chen, Jiacheng Xu, Zongzhang Zhang, and Yang Yu. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14483 Language model self-improvement by reinforcement learning contemplation

work page arXiv 2023
[39]

Guilherme Penedo, Quentin Malartic, Daniel Hesslow, Ruxandra Cojocaru, Alessandro Cappelli, Hamza Alobeidli, Baptiste Pannier, Ebtesam Almazrouei, and Julien Launay. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.01116 The refinedweb dataset for falcon llm: Outperforming curated corpora with web data, and web data only

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[41]

Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model

Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18290 Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[42]

Miguel Moura Ramos, Patrick Fernandes, António Farinhas, and André F. T. Martins. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09132 Aligning neural machine translation models: Human feedback in training and inference

work page arXiv 2023
[44]

John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347 Proximal policy optimization algorithms

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[46]

Feifan Song, Bowen Yu, Minghao Li, Haiyang Yu, Fei Huang, Yongbin Li, and Houfeng Wang. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.17492 Preference ranking optimization for human alignment

work page arXiv 2023
[47]

Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul Christiano

Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Daniel M. Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul Christiano. 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01325 Learning to summarize from human feedback

work page arXiv 2022
[48]

Hashimoto

Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca

work page 2023
[49]

Manning, and Chelsea Finn

Katherine Tian, Eric Mitchell, Huaxiu Yao, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08401 Fine-tuning language models for factuality

work page arXiv 2023
[50]

Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971 Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[51]

Zephyr: Direct Distillation of LM Alignment

Lewis Tunstall, Edward Beeching, Nathan Lambert, Nazneen Rajani, Kashif Rasul, Younes Belkada, Shengyi Huang, Leandro von Werra, Clémentine Fourrier, Nathan Habib, Nathan Sarrazin, Omar Sanseviero, Alexander M. Rush, and Thomas Wolf. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.16944 Zephyr: Direct distillation of lm alignment

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023
[52]

Leandro von Werra, Younes Belkada, Lewis Tunstall, Edward Beeching, Tristan Thrush, Nathan Lambert, and Shengyi Huang. 2020. Trl: Transformer reinforcement learning. https://github.com/huggingface/trl

work page 2020
[53]

Binghai Wang, Rui Zheng, Lu Chen, Yan Liu, Shihan Dou, Caishuang Huang, Wei Shen, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, Chenyu Shi, Songyang Gao, Nuo Xu, Yuhao Zhou, Xiaoran Fan, Zhiheng Xi, Jun Zhao, Xiao Wang, Tao Ji, Hang Yan, Lixing Shen, Zhan Chen, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, Xipeng Qiu, Xuanjing Huang, Zuxuan Wu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.06080 Sec...

work page arXiv 2024
[54]

ArXiv , volume =

Yizhong Wang, Hamish Ivison, Pradeep Dasigi, Jack Hessel, Tushar Khot, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, David Wadden, Kelsey MacMillan, Noah A. Smith, Iz Beltagy, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.04751 How far can camels go? exploring the state of instruction tuning on open resources

work page arXiv 2023
[55]

Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners

Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.01652 Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[57]

Tianhao Wu, Banghua Zhu, Ruoyu Zhang, Zhaojin Wen, Kannan Ramchandran, and Jiantao Jiao. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.00212 Pairwise proximal policy optimization: Harnessing relative feedback for llm alignment

work page arXiv 2023
[58]

Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, Todor Mihaylov, Myle Ott, Sam Shleifer, Kurt Shuster, Daniel Simig, Punit Singh Koura, Anjali Sridhar, Tianlu Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.01068 Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[59]

Yanli Zhao, Andrew Gu, Rohan Varma, Liang Luo, Chien-Chin Huang, Min Xu, Less Wright, Hamid Shojanazeri, Myle Ott, Sam Shleifer, Alban Desmaison, Can Balioglu, Pritam Damania, Bernard Nguyen, Geeta Chauhan, Yuchen Hao, Ajit Mathews, and Shen Li. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.11277 Pytorch fsdp: Experiences on scaling fully sharded data parallel

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[61]

Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srini Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, Susan Zhang, Gargi Ghosh, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2023 a . http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.11206 Lima: Less is more for alignment

work page arXiv 2023
[62]

Haotian Zhou, Tingkai Liu, Qianli Ma, Jianbo Yuan, Pengfei Liu, Yang You, and Hongxia Yang. 2023 b . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:264406231 Lobass: Gauging learnability in supervised fine-tuning data . ArXiv, abs/2310.13008

work page arXiv 2023
[63]

Jeffrey Zhou, Tianjian Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Siddhartha Brahma, Sujoy Basu, Yi Luan, Denny Zhou, and Le Hou. 2023 c . http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07911 Instruction-following evaluation for large language models

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[64]

Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences

Daniel M. Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Jeffrey Wu, Tom B. Brown, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, Paul Christiano, and Geoffrey Irving. 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.08593 Fine-tuning language models from human preferences

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[65]

2020 , eprint=

Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences , author=. 2020 , eprint=

work page 2020
[66]

2022 , eprint=

Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback , author=. 2022 , eprint=

work page 2022
[67]

2023 , eprint=

Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model , author=. 2023 , eprint=

work page 2023
[68]

2023 , eprint=

Preference Ranking Optimization for Human Alignment , author=. 2023 , eprint=

work page 2023
[69]

2023 , eprint=

A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferences , author=. 2023 , eprint=

work page 2023
[70]

The method of paired comparisons , author=

Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons , author=. Biometrika , volume=. 1952 , publisher=

work page 1952
[71]

2020 , eprint=

Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering , author=. 2020 , eprint=

work page 2020
[72]

OpenAI blog , volume=

Language models are unsupervised multitask learners , author=. OpenAI blog , volume=

work page
[73]

2022 , eprint=

OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Models , author=. 2022 , eprint=

work page 2022
[74]

2023 , eprint=

BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Model , author=. 2023 , eprint=

work page 2023
[75]

2022 , eprint=

Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback , author=. 2022 , eprint=

work page 2022
[76]

2017 , eprint=

Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms , author=. 2017 , eprint=

work page 2017
[77]

2022 , eprint=

Understanding Dimensional Collapse in Contrastive Self-supervised Learning , author=. 2022 , eprint=

work page 2022
[78]

International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

Model-aware contrastive learning: Towards escaping the dilemmas , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2023 , organization=

work page 2023
[79]

Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

Understanding the behaviour of contrastive loss , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

work page
[80]

Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering

Karpukhin, Vladimir and Oguz, Barlas and Min, Sewon and Lewis, Patrick and Wu, Ledell and Edunov, Sergey and Chen, Danqi and Yih, Wen-tau. Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 2020. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.550

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.550 2020
[81]

2023 , eprint=

Zephyr: Direct Distillation of LM Alignment , author=. 2023 , eprint=

work page 2023
[82]

GitHub repository , howpublished =

Leandro von Werra and Younes Belkada and Lewis Tunstall and Edward Beeching and Tristan Thrush and Nathan Lambert and Shengyi Huang , title =. GitHub repository , howpublished =. 2020 , publisher =

work page 2020
[83]

2023 , eprint=

FlashAttention-2: Faster Attention with Better Parallelism and Work Partitioning , author=. 2023 , eprint=

work page 2023
[84]

2023 , eprint=

Fine-tuning Language Models for Factuality , author=. 2023 , eprint=

work page 2023
[85]

2024 , eprint=

Can AI Assistants Know What They Don't Know? , author=. 2024 , eprint=

work page 2024
[86]

2024 , eprint=

Reinforcement learning for question answering in programming domain using public community scoring as a human feedback , author=. 2024 , eprint=

work page 2024
[87]

2023 , eprint=

Aligning Neural Machine Translation Models: Human Feedback in Training and Inference , author=. 2023 , eprint=

work page 2023
[88]

Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages=

Focal loss for dense object detection , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages=

work page
[89]

2022 , eprint=

Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback , author=. 2022 , eprint=

work page 2022

Showing first 80 references.