Hybrid Preferences: Learning to Route Instances for Human vs. AI Feedback

Learning from human feedback has enabled the alignment of language models (LMs) with human preferences. However, directly collecting human preferences can be expensive, time-consuming, and can have high variance. An appealing alternative is to distill preferences from LMs as a source of synthetic annotations as they are more consistent, cheaper, and scale better than human annotation; however, they are also prone to biases and errors. In this work, we introduce a routing framework that combines inputs from humans and LMs to achieve better annotation quality, while reducing the total cost of human annotation. The crux of our approach is to identify preference instances that will benefit from human annotations. We formulate this as an optimization problem: given a preference dataset and an evaluation metric, we train a performance prediction model to predict a reward model's performance on an arbitrary combination of human and LM annotations and employ a routing strategy that selects a combination that maximizes predicted performance. We train the performance prediction model on MultiPref, a new preference dataset with 10K instances paired with human and LM labels. We show that the selected hybrid mixture of LM and direct human preferences using our routing framework achieves better reward model performance compared to using either one exclusively. We simulate selective human preference collection on three other datasets and show that our method generalizes well to all three. We analyze features from the routing model to identify characteristics of instances that can benefit from human feedback, e.g., prompts with a moderate safety concern or moderate intent complexity. We release the dataset, annotation platform, and source code used in this study to foster more efficient and accurate preference collection in the future.

SafetyAnalyst: Interpretable, transparent, and steerable LLM safety moderation

The ideal LLM content moderation system would be both structurally interpretable (so its decisions can be explained to users) and steerable (to reflect a community's values or align to safety standards). However, current systems fall short on both of these dimensions. To address this gap, we present SafetyAnalyst, a novel LLM safety moderation framework. Given a prompt, SafetyAnalyst creates a structured "harm-benefit tree," which identifies 1) the actions that could be taken if a compliant response were provided, 2) the harmful and beneficial effects of those actions (along with their likelihood, severity, and immediacy), and 3) the stakeholders that would be impacted by those effects. It then aggregates this structured representation into a harmfulness score based on a parameterized set of safety preferences, which can be transparently aligned to particular values. Using extensive harm-benefit features generated by SOTA LLMs on 19k prompts, we fine-tuned an open-weight LM to specialize in generating harm-benefit trees through symbolic knowledge distillation. On a comprehensive set of prompt safety benchmarks, we show that our system (average F1=0.75) outperforms existing LLM safety moderation systems (average F1$<$0.72) on prompt harmfulness classification, while offering the additional advantages of interpretability and steerability.

Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know?

We examine diverging preferences in human-labeled preference datasets. We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes -- task underspecification, response style, refusals, and annotation errors. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches, which are designed with the assumption that annotator disagreement is noise. We then explore how these findings impact two areas of LLM development: reward modeling and evaluation. In our experiments, we demonstrate how standard reward modeling methods, like the Bradley-Terry model, fail to differentiate whether a given preference judgment is the result of unanimous agreement among annotators or the majority opinion among diverging user preferences. We also find that these tendencies are also echoed by popular LLM-as-Judge evaluation methods, which consistently identify a winning response in cases of diverging preferences. These findings highlight remaining challenges in LLM evaluations, which are greatly influenced by divisive features like response style, and in developing pluralistically aligned LLMs. To address these issues, we develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.

Explicating the Implicit: Argument Detection Beyond Sentence Boundaries

Detecting semantic arguments of a predicate word has been conventionally modeled as a sentence-level task. The typical reader, however, perfectly interprets predicate-argument relations in a much wider context than just the sentence where the predicate was evoked. In this work, we reformulate the problem of argument detection through textual entailment to capture semantic relations across sentence boundaries. We propose a method that tests whether some semantic relation can be inferred from a full passage by first encoding it into a simple and standalone proposition and then testing for entailment against the passage. Our method does not require direct supervision, which is generally absent due to dataset scarcity, but instead builds on existing NLI and sentence-level SRL resources. Such a method can potentially explicate pragmatically understood relations into a set of explicit sentences. We demonstrate it on a recent document-level benchmark, outperforming some supervised methods and contemporary language models.

Self-Directed Synthetic Dialogues and Revisions Technical Report

Synthetic data has become an important tool in the fine-tuning of language models to follow instructions and solve complex problems. Nevertheless, the majority of open data to date is often lacking multi-turn data and collected on closed models, limiting progress on advancing open fine-tuning methods. We introduce Self Directed Synthetic Dialogues (SDSD), an experimental dataset consisting of guided conversations of language models talking to themselves. The dataset consists of multi-turn conversations generated with DBRX, Llama 2 70B, and Mistral Large, all instructed to follow a conversation plan generated prior to the conversation. We also explore including principles from Constitutional AI and other related works to create synthetic preference data via revisions to the final conversation turn. We hope this work encourages further exploration in multi-turn data and the use of open models for expanding the impact of synthetic data.

Unpacking DPO and PPO: Disentangling Best Practices for Learning from Preference Feedback

Learning from preference feedback has emerged as an essential step for improving the generation quality and performance of modern language models (LMs). Despite its widespread use, the way preference-based learning is applied varies wildly, with differing data, learning algorithms, and evaluations used, making disentangling the impact of each aspect difficult. In this work, we identify four core aspects of preference-based learning: preference data, learning algorithm, reward model, and policy training prompts, systematically investigate the impact of these components on downstream model performance, and suggest a recipe for strong learning for preference feedback. Our findings indicate that all aspects are important for performance, with better preference data leading to the largest improvements, followed by the choice of learning algorithm, the use of improved reward models, and finally the use of additional unlabeled prompts for policy training. Notably, PPO outperforms DPO by up to 2.5% in math and 1.2% in general domains. High-quality preference data leads to improvements of up to 8% in instruction following and truthfulness. Despite significant gains of up to 5% in mathematical evaluation when scaling up reward models, we surprisingly observe marginal improvements in other categories. We publicly release the code used for training (https://github.com/hamishivi/EasyLM) and evaluating (https://github.com/allenai/open-instruct) our models, along with the models and datasets themselves (https://huggingface.co/collections/allenai/tulu-v25-suite-66676520fd578080e126f618).

WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wild

We introduce WildBench, an automated evaluation framework designed to benchmark large language models (LLMs) using challenging, real-world user queries. WildBench consists of 1,024 tasks carefully selected from over one million human-chatbot conversation logs. For automated evaluation with WildBench, we have developed two metrics, WB-Reward and WB-Score, which are computable using advanced LLMs such as GPT-4-turbo. WildBench evaluation uses task-specific checklists to evaluate model outputs systematically and provides structured explanations that justify the scores and comparisons, resulting in more reliable and interpretable automatic judgments. WB-Reward employs fine-grained pairwise comparisons between model responses, generating five potential outcomes: much better, slightly better, slightly worse, much worse, or a tie. Unlike previous evaluations that employed a single baseline model, we selected three baseline models at varying performance levels to ensure a comprehensive pairwise evaluation. Additionally, we propose a simple method to mitigate length bias, by converting outcomes of ``slightly better/worse'' to ``tie'' if the winner response exceeds the loser one by more than $K$ characters. WB-Score evaluates the quality of model outputs individually, making it a fast and cost-efficient evaluation metric. WildBench results demonstrate a strong correlation with the human-voted Elo ratings from Chatbot Arena on hard tasks. Specifically, WB-Reward achieves a Pearson correlation of 0.98 with top-ranking models. Additionally, WB-Score reaches 0.95, surpassing both ArenaHard's 0.91 and AlpacaEval2.0's 0.89 for length-controlled win rates, as well as the 0.87 for regular win rates.

Superlatives in Context: Explicit and Implicit Domain Restrictions for Superlative Frames

Superlatives are used to single out elements with a maximal/minimal property. Semantically, superlatives perform a set comparison: something (or some things) has the min/max property out of a set. As such, superlatives provide an ideal phenomenon for studying implicit phenomena and discourse restrictions. While this comparison set is often not explicitly defined, its (implicit) restrictions can be inferred from the discourse context the expression appears in. In this work we provide an extensive computational study on the semantics of superlatives. We propose a unified account of superlative semantics which allows us to derive a broad-coverage annotation schema. Using this unified schema we annotated a multi-domain dataset of superlatives and their semantic interpretations. We specifically focus on interpreting implicit or ambiguous superlative expressions, by analyzing how the discourse context restricts the set of interpretations. In a set of experiments we then analyze how well models perform at variations of predicting superlative semantics, with and without context. We show that the fine-grained semantics of superlatives in context can be challenging for contemporary models, including GPT-4.

RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling

Reward models (RMs) are at the crux of successful RLHF to align pretrained models to human preferences, yet there has been relatively little study that focuses on evaluation of those reward models. Evaluating reward models presents an opportunity to understand the opaque technologies used for alignment of language models and which values are embedded in them. To date, very few descriptors of capabilities, training methods, or open-source reward models exist. In this paper, we present RewardBench, a benchmark dataset and code-base for evaluation, to enhance scientific understanding of reward models. The RewardBench dataset is a collection of prompt-win-lose trios spanning chat, reasoning, and safety, to benchmark how reward models perform on challenging, structured and out-of-distribution queries. We created specific comparison datasets for RMs that have subtle, but verifiable reasons (e.g. bugs, incorrect facts) why one answer should be preferred to another. On the RewardBench leaderboard, we evaluate reward models trained with a variety of methods, such as the direct MLE training of classifiers and the implicit reward modeling of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and on a spectrum of datasets. We present many findings on propensity for refusals, reasoning limitations, and instruction following shortcomings of various reward models towards a better understanding of the RLHF process.

Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models

Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificiality of current evaluations: real users do not typically ask LLMs survey questions. Motivated by this discrepancy, we challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in LLMs and explore more realistic unconstrained evaluations. As a case study, we focus on the popular Political Compass Test (PCT). In a systematic review, we find that most prior work using the PCT forces models to comply with the PCT's multiple-choice format. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced; that answers change depending on how models are forced; and that answers lack paraphrase robustness. Then, we demonstrate that models give different answers yet again in a more realistic open-ended answer setting. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.