Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

A Systematic Examination of Preference Learning through the Lens of Instruction-Following

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Preference pairs that share a prefix train better instruction-followers

desk verdict Solid, reusable benchmark and a robust difficulty finding; the shared-prefix headline is an identification assumption, not an established causal effect. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15282 v1 pith:JDJTYP4C submitted 2024-12-18 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IR

Joongwon Kim , Anirudh Goyal , Aston Zhang , Bo Xiong , Rui Hou , Melanie Kambadur , Dhruv Mahajan , Hannaneh Hajishirzi
show 1 more author
Liang Tan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.IR
keywords preferencelearninginstructionfollowingrejectionsamplingMonteCarloTreeSearchverifiableconstraintspromptdifficultysharedprefixesresponsecontrast
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies how the content of preference-training pairs affects how well a language model learns to follow instructions. Using a self-generated set of 48,000 synthetic prompts, each combining four to six automatically verifiable constraints, it compares two ways of building (chosen, rejected) response pairs: rejection sampling, which produces independent responses, and Monte Carlo Tree Search, which produces pairs that share a common prefix. The central claim is that shared-prefix pairs give small but consistent performance gains and more stable results across training settings, that high-contrast pairs help more than low-contrast pairs but mixing in some low-contrast pairs can help, and that moderately difficult prompts generalize better than very hard prompts. If true, these findings give concrete rules for how to build preference datasets for instruction-following.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a synthetic prompt pipeline that generates 48,000 instruction-following prompts from 23 code-verifiable constraints (such as 'include an alliteration of N words' or 'start the response with this sentence'), each paired with keyword arguments. Because every constraint can be checked by code, any response gets a deterministic score between 0 and 1, which lets the authors control the exact quality of chosen and rejected responses, define contrast as the difference between their scores, and build preference pairs with and without shared prefixes using rejection sampling and Monte Carlo Tree Search.

What would settle it

Run the same three comparisons on a non-verifiable, human-annotated preference dataset; if shared-prefix pairs do not beat independent pairs, or high-contrast pairs do not beat low-contrast, or moderate prompts do not beat hard prompts, the conclusions are limited to the verifiable-constraint setting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central finding is that three measurable properties of a preference dataset shape downstream instruction-following performance in predictable ways. First, pairs of responses that share a prefix, as produced by MCTS, outperform independently sampled pairs from rejection sampling by a small but consistent margin, and the MCTS-trained models are less sensitive to changes in the training configuration. Second, when the chosen response is held fixed, raising the quality of the rejected response (lowering the contrast) steadily reduces performance; the margin between chosen and rejected matters more than the absolute quality of either, and a mixture of high- and low-contrast pairs is sometimes better than either alone. Third, training on prompts with four constraints ('moderate' difficulty) beats training on prompts with six constraints even when the evaluation set has six constraints, so the hardest training prompts are not the best for generalization.

Load-bearing premise

The attribution of the RS-versus-MCTS difference to shared prefixes assumes that the two curation pipelines are otherwise identical, yet they differ in how responses are selected, in the presence of a self-evaluation reward during tree search, in pair yield, and in the distribution of response-quality margins.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When compute permits, preference pairs with shared prefixes (as in MCTS) are a safer default than independently sampled pairs, because they are more stable across training configurations.
  • High-contrast pairs should be prioritized over low-contrast pairs, and the margin between chosen and rejected should be tracked rather than the absolute quality of the chosen response.
  • Curators should avoid the hardest prompts when building preference datasets; moderate difficulty yields better generalization, even to harder evaluation sets.
  • Rejection-sampling with more than about 32 samples per prompt gives diminishing returns, suggesting that further gains require search-based curation rather than more samples.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The shared-prefix advantage may be tied to the verifiable-constraint setting; for open-ended semantic preferences, the stability benefit could shrink or grow, and this is an open question.
  • The moderate-difficulty result hints at a curriculum effect: pairing moderate prompts with high contrast might generalize better than a static hard-prompt set. A testable extension is to progressively increase k during training.
  • Because the scoring is deterministic, the findings are most directly actionable for code-verifiable tasks (formatting, structure); a testable extension is replacing the verifier with a learned reward model to see if the same trends hold.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic, synthetic-pipeline study of how three attributes of preference datasets--shared prefixes between chosen and rejected responses, response contrast/quality, and training-prompt difficulty--affect DPO fine-tuning for instruction following. The authors generate 48K synthetic prompts with combinations of 23 code-verifiable constraints, curate preference pairs via rejection sampling (RS) and Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), and evaluate on IFEval and three harder synthetic evaluation sets built from a disjoint constraint set. The main qualitative claims are that MCTS pairs (attributed to shared prefixes) give marginal but consistent gains over RS pairs, that high-contrast pairs beat low-contrast pairs with mixtures sometimes best, and that moderate training-prompt difficulty generalizes best even to harder evaluation sets.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper offers actionable, large-scale guidance for preference-data curation and introduces a reusable synthetic framework with deterministic verifiers, which is a notable methodological strength. The controlled setup (fixed dataset size and unique prompt count) and the use of evaluation constraints disjoint from training constraints are positive design choices. The extensive tables and code-verifiable constraints support the qualitative trends for contrast and difficulty. However, the central shared-prefix claim rests on a comparison of two curation pipelines that differ in several dimensions beyond prefix presence, and the 'consistent/stability' language is not supported by repeated-seed or significance evidence. The generalization of findings to human-preference data is explicitly deferred to future work in Section 6.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Table 4 and Section 4] The paper attributes the observed RS-versus-MCTS differences to the presence of shared prefixes, but the comparison is confounded. Section 5.1 states that RS and MCTS 'curate preference datasets under identical conditions,' yet only dataset size and number of unique prompts are fixed. The two pipelines differ in at least four additional ways: (i) RS samples N=64 independent responses while MCTS performs PUCT-guided tree search with K=4 actions and rollouts; (ii) MCTS uses a self-evaluation score with lambda=0.2 in the Section 4 reward equation, which RS does not; (iii) pair extraction differs (top/bottom independent responses for RS versus sibling nodes of a tree for MCTS); and (iv) Figure 3 shows different pair yields and margin distributions at every (c,r) filter. Consequently, the observed gains could be caused by selection dynamics, self-evaluation, or pair structure, not specifically prefix sharing. To support the abstract's causal claim that 'shared prefixes ... provide marginal but consistent improvements,' the paper needs a control that isolates prefix presence, for example within-MCTS pairs with and without shared prefixes, or an RS variant that artificially shares prefixes. At minimum, the language should be softened to describe MCTS-curated versus RS-curated pairs.
  2. [Section 5.1, Tables 4-6] The claims of 'consistent' and 'more stable' performance are based on a single training run per configuration, with no standard errors, confidence intervals, or significance tests. For example, in Table 4 for k=4, (c=4,r=1), IFEval is 79.24 (RS) versus 79.48 (MCTS), a difference of 0.24 points; similar small margins appear in most rows. The text in Section 5.1 itself acknowledges 'While not a significant difference,' which contradicts the subsequent use of 'consistently' in the same section and in Section 1 and the abstract. Without seed variation or an estimate of variance, the stability claim is unsupported. The paper should either report multiple seeds with error bars or replace 'consistent' with 'observed in the reported single runs.'
  3. [Section 5.3, Table 6] The comparison of training-prompt difficulty across k=4, 5, and 6 is partially confounded with absolute chosen correctness. In each row of Table 6, the chosen correctness is set to c=k-1 (3, 4, 5) and the rejected to r=k-4 (0, 1, 2), keeping the margin c-r constant at 3 but letting the chosen score increase with k. The paper's own finding in Section 5.2 that margin matters more than absolute scores mitigates this, but the k levels also differ in prompt length (70.6, 84.2, and 98.0 words in Table 2) and in the available preference-pair distributions (Figure 3). The claim that moderate difficulty is 'more helpful' is plausible and supported by the direction of the results, but it is not isolated as a pure difficulty effect. Please acknowledge this residual confound or provide an additional comparison that holds c and r fixed across k (e.g., (c=3,r=0) for all k).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4 caption and Section 5.1] The phrase 'without shared prefixes (RS)' and 'with shared prefixes (MCTS)' overstates the structural difference, because RS pairs can share prefixes by chance. Consider 'independently sampled pairs (RS)' versus 'tree-sibling pairs (MCTS)'.
  2. [Section 4, data curation setup] It is not explicitly stated which model is used as the policy for RS and MCTS response generation (the training setup mentions llama-3.1-8b-instruct, but the pipeline description in Section 4 says only 'the policy model'). Please specify the exact model and decoding parameters for data curation.
  3. [Figure 3] The y-axis labels are unclear; the caption says 'number of preference pairs' but the left panel shows 'unique prompts,' and the units/counts are not explained. Adding axis labels and precise definitions would help reproducibility.
  4. [Table 8] The description for number_italic_words says 'textile format' which appears to be a typo for a markup or should simply say 'underscore-delimited'; the example '_word_' is clearer than the word 'textile.'
  5. [Section 6 and abstract] The conclusion appropriately states that extending to more general constraints is future work, but the abstract and introduction present the shared-prefix finding as established. Please align the strength of the claims in the abstract with the experimental design limitations noted in Sections 5.1 and 6.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's comparisons are empirical, its evaluation is externally anchored, and no predicted quantity is defined in terms of its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical comparisons of DPO training runs on differently curated preference pairs, not derivations that feed a predicted quantity back into its own definition. The shared-prefix comparison in Section 5.1 contrasts two curation pipelines (RS vs MCTS); while this is confounded as a causal attribution (the pipelines differ in sampling dynamics, reward signals, and pair yields), that is an identification problem, not circularity: the outcome (IFEval/synthetic-set accuracy) is not constructed from the treatment (shared prefix) by definition. The evaluation is externally anchored: training prompts use the paper's own 23 constraints, while the IFEval benchmark and the synthetic evaluation sets use IFEval constraints, with Section 3.2 stating the evaluation sets are 'created using the same pipeline described in Section 3.2, but with the verifiable constraints provided in IFEval to maintain the distinction between the constraints used for training and for evaluation.' Thus the evaluation does not reduce to the training data. Contrast and prompt-difficulty findings are table-row comparisons with fixed training-set size and unique-prompt counts, again empirical rather than definitional. Self-citations (Instruct-SkillMix and MCTS references sharing an author) are used as method sources, not as load-bearing uniqueness or correctness arguments. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no quantity in the paper is defined in terms of the quantity it purports to predict. The one-run-per-configuration stability claim and the confounded shared-prefix attribution are correctness risks, but they do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical study, so the ledger contains no invented entities and no fitted-parameter derivation. The hand-chosen entries are curation and training hyperparameters, held fixed across comparisons, so they do not by themselves determine the qualitative differences between table rows. The load-bearing assumptions are that verifiable-constraint prompts proxy real instruction following and that the aggregate constraint score adequately captures response quality for preference ranking.

free parameters (6)
  • cpuct = 1.0
    PUCT exploration constant in MCTS selection (Section 4); hand-chosen and fixed across all experiments.
  • lambda = 0.2
    Weight on self-evaluation in the MCTS rollout reward (Section 4); hand-chosen and fixed.
  • MCTS tree settings = depth 5, actions 4, rollouts 4
    Tree construction hyperparameters (Section 4); hand-chosen and held fixed.
  • N (RS samples per prompt) = 64
    Number of rejection-sampling outputs per prompt (Section 4); the scaling study in Section 5.4 varies N.
  • DPO training settings = lr 5e-7, batch 32, 1 epoch
    Fine-tuning hyperparameters (Training setup paragraph); hand-chosen and held fixed.
  • gamma = 1.0
    Denominator moderator in the MCTS policy score (Appendix B); hand-chosen.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Synthetic prompts with code-verifiable constraints are a faithful proxy for real instruction-following tasks, so findings transfer to general preference data.
    Section 3.1 frames instruction following with verifiable constraints as the test bed; Section 6 defers generalization to non-verifiable constraints to future work, making transferability an assumed premise of the actionable conclusions.
  • domain assumption The aggregate correctness score R(r|x,C) = (1/|C|) * sum_c V(r|x,c) is an adequate scalarization of response quality for ranking chosen vs rejected responses.
    Section 4 defines the score and uses it for both curation and evaluation; all claims about quality and contrast rest on this equal-weight aggregation.
  • standard math The Bradley-Terry model and the DPO objective correctly convert preference pairs into a beneficial training signal.
    Section 2 invokes DPO and Bradley-Terry without modification; the paper's conclusions are conditional on this standard framework.
  • domain assumption The authors' 23 constraints and generator produce prompts sufficiently distinct from IFEval to serve as out-of-distribution evaluations.
    Section 3.2 uses IFEval constraints for evaluation to keep train and eval constraint sets separate; the distinction is asserted, not validated by a human study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Systematic Examination of Preference Learning through the Lens of Instruction-Following." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JDJTYP4C

@misc{pith2026241215282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Systematic Examination of Preference Learning through the Lens of Instruction-Following},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JDJTYP4C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15282}
}
read the original abstract

Preference learning is a widely adopted post-training technique that aligns large language models (LLMs) to human preferences and improves specific downstream task capabilities. In this work we systematically investigate how specific attributes of preference datasets affect the alignment and downstream performance of LLMs in instruction-following tasks. We use a novel synthetic data generation pipeline to generate 48,000 unique instruction-following prompts with combinations of 23 verifiable constraints that enable fine-grained and automated quality assessments of model responses. With our synthetic prompts, we use two preference dataset curation methods - rejection sampling (RS) and Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) - to obtain pairs of (chosen, rejected) responses. Then, we perform experiments investigating the effects of (1) the presence of shared prefixes between the chosen and rejected responses, (2) the contrast and quality of the chosen, rejected responses and (3) the complexity of the training prompts. Our experiments reveal that shared prefixes in preference pairs, as generated by MCTS, provide marginal but consistent improvements and greater stability across challenging training configurations. High-contrast preference pairs generally outperform low-contrast pairs; however, combining both often yields the best performance by balancing diversity and learning efficiency. Additionally, training on prompts of moderate difficulty leads to better generalization across tasks, even for more complex evaluation scenarios, compared to overly challenging prompts. Our findings provide actionable insights into optimizing preference data curation for instruction-following tasks, offering a scalable and effective framework for enhancing LLM training and alignment.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The llama 3 herd of models.CoRR, abs/2407.21783,

    AI at Meta. The llama 3 herd of models.CoRR, abs/2407.21783,

    arXiv

  2. [3]

    Brown, Jack Clark, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, Benjamin Mann, and Jared Kaplan

    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, ...

    arXiv

  3. [7]

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2406.09279.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406. 09279. Simran Kaur, Simon Park, Anirudh Goyal, and Sanjeev Arora. Instruct-skillmix: A powerful pipeline for LLM instruction tuning. CoRR, abs/2408.14774,

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.09279

  4. [8]

    Saeed Khaki, JinJin Li, Lan Ma, Liu Yang, and Prathap Ramachandra

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2408.14774.https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2408.14774. Saeed Khaki, JinJin Li, Lan Ma, Liu Yang, and Prathap Ramachandra. RS-DPO: A hybrid rejection sampling and direct preference optimization method for alignment of large language models. In Kevin Duh, Helena Gómez- Adorno, and Steven Bethard, editors,Findings of the Association for C...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.14774

  5. [9]

    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-naacl.108

    doi: 10.18653/V1/2024.FINDINGS-NAACL.108. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-naacl.108. Xin Lai, Zhuotao Tian, Yukang Chen, Senqiao Yang, Xiangru Peng, and Jiaya Jia. Step-dpo: Step-wise preference optimization for long-chain reasoning of llms.CoRR, abs/2406.18629,

    arXiv 2024

  6. [10]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.18629

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2406.18629. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.18629. Grégoire Mialon, Clémentine Fourrier, Thomas Wolf, Yann LeCun, and Thomas Scialom. GAIA: a benchmark for general AI assistants. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11,

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.18629

  7. [11]

    https://openreview.net/forum?id=fibxvahvs3. OpenAI. GPT-4 technical report.CoRR, abs/2303.08774,

    arXiv

  8. [12]

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2303.08774.https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey 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 F. Christiano, Jan Leike, an...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.08774

Show all 26 references
  1. [13]

    Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Weizhe Yuan, Kyunghyun Cho, He He, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Jason Weston

    http:// papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/b1efde53be364a73914f58805a001731-Abstract-Conference.html. Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Weizhe Yuan, Kyunghyun Cho, He He, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Jason Weston. Iterative reasoning preference optimization. CoRR, abs/2404.19733,

    2022 arXiv

  2. [14]

    https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.19733

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2404.19733. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.19733. 14 Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In Alice Oh, T...

    doi arXiv

  3. [18]

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Huai hsin Chi, and Denny Zhou

    https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/1f89885d556929e98d3ef9b86448f951-Abstract.html. Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Huai hsin Chi, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models.ArXiv, abs/2203.11171,

    2020 arXiv

  4. [19]

    Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A

    https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:247595263. Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instructions. In Anna Rogers, Jordan L. Boyd-Graber...

    2023

  5. [20]

    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023

    doi: 10.18653/V1/2023.ACL-LONG.754. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023. acl-long.754. Bosi Wen, Pei Ke, Xiaotao Gu, Lindong Wu, Hao Huang, Jinfeng Zhou, Wenchuang Li, Binxin Hu, Wendy Gao, Jiaxin Xu, Yiming Liu, Jie Tang, Hongning Wang, and Minlie Huang. Benchmarking complex ins...

    2023 arXiv

  6. [21]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.03978

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2407.03978. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.03978. Wenyi Xiao, Zechuan Wang, Leilei Gan, Shuai Zhao, Wanggui He, Luu Anh Tuan, Long Chen, Hao Jiang, Zhou Zhao, and Fei Wu. A comprehensive survey of datasets, theories, variants, and applications in direc...

    doi arXiv

  7. [22]

    Yuxi Xie, Anirudh Goyal, Wenyue Zheng, Min-Yen Kan, Timothy P

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2410.15595.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.15595. Yuxi Xie, Anirudh Goyal, Wenyue Zheng, Min-Yen Kan, Timothy P. Lillicrap, Kenji Kawaguchi, and Michael Shieh. Monte carlo tree search boosts reasoning via iterative preference learning.CoRR, abs/2405.00451,

    doi arXiv

  8. [23]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.00451

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2405.00451. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.00451. Jing Xu, Andrew Lee, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Jason Weston. Some things are more CRINGE than others: Preference optimization with the pairwise cringe loss.CoRR, abs/2312.16682,

    doi arXiv

  9. [24]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.16682

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2312.16682. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.16682. Lifan Yuan, Ganqu Cui, Hanbin Wang, Ning Ding, Xingyao Wang, Jia Deng, Boji Shan, Huimin Chen, Ruobing Xie, Yankai Lin, Zhenghao Liu, Bowen Zhou, Hao Peng, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Advancing LLM re...

    doi arXiv

  10. [25]

    https://openreview.net/forum?id=0NphYCmgua

    OpenReview.net, 2024b. https://openreview.net/forum?id=0NphYCmgua. Dan Zhang, Sining Zhoubian, Yisong Yue, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. Rest-mcts*: LLM self-training via process reward guided tree search.CoRR, abs/2406.03816, 2024a. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2406.03816.https://doi.org...

    doi arXiv

  11. [26]

    2311.07911

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV. 2311.07911. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.07911. Yiyang Zhou, Chenhang Cui, Rafael Rafailov, Chelsea Finn, and Huaxiu Yao. Aligning modalities in vision large language models via preference fine-tuning. CoRR, abs/2402.11411,

    doi arXiv

  12. [27]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.11411

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2402.11411. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.11411. 16 Appendix A Complete Ontology of Verifiable Constraints and Training Examples We present our 23 verifiable constraints in Table 8, and examples of our synthetic prompts in Table

    doi arXiv

  13. [2017]

    Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and Tie-Yan Liu

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347. Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and Tie-Yan Liu. Mpnet: Masked and permuted pre-training for language understanding. In Hugo Larochelle, Marc’Aurelio Ranzato, Raia Hadsell, Maria-Florina Balcan, and Hsuan-Tien Lin, editors,Advances i...

    2020 arXiv

  14. [2020]

    Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel M

    https://proceedings.neurips.cc/ paper/2020/hash/c3a690be93aa602ee2dc0ccab5b7b67e-Abstract.html. Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel M. Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul F. Christiano. Learning to summarize with human feedback. I...

    2020

  15. [2021]

    neurips.cc/paper/2021/hash/be83ab3ecd0db773eb2dc1b0a17836a1-Abstract-round2.html

    https://datasets-benchmarks-proceedings. neurips.cc/paper/2021/hash/be83ab3ecd0db773eb2dc1b0a17836a1-Abstract-round2.html. Hamish Ivison, Yizhong Wang, Jiacheng Liu, Zeqiu Wu, Valentina Pyatkin, Nathan Lambert, Noah A. Smith, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Unpacking DPO ...

    2021 arXiv

  16. [2022]

    Ralph Bradley and Milton Terry

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2204.05862.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.05862. Ralph Bradley and Milton Terry. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39, December 1952.https://doi.org/10.2307/2334029. Google. Gemini: A family of ...

    1952 doi arXiv

  17. [2023]

    2312.11805

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV. 2312.11805. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.11805. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset. In Joaquin Vanschoren ...

    doi arXiv

  18. [2024]

    https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.21783

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2407.21783. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.21783. Anthropic. The Claude 3 Model Family: Opus, Sonnet, Haiku. https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/ de8ba9b01c9ab7cbabf5c33b80b7bbc618857627/Model_Card_Claude_3.pdf, March

    doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.