REVIEW 5 cited by
Training Language Models with Language Feedback at Scale
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Pretrained language models often generate outputs that are not in line with human preferences, such as harmful text or factually incorrect summaries. Recent work approaches the above issues by learning from a simple form of human feedback: comparisons between pairs of model-generated outputs. However, comparison feedback only conveys limited information about human preferences. In this paper, we introduce Imitation learning from Language Feedback (ILF), a new approach that utilizes more informative language feedback. ILF consists of three steps that are applied iteratively: first, conditioning the language model on the input, an initial LM output, and feedback to generate refinements. Second, selecting the refinement incorporating the most feedback. Third, finetuning the language model to maximize the likelihood of the chosen refinement given the input. We show theoretically that ILF can be viewed as Bayesian Inference, similar to Reinforcement Learning from human feedback. We evaluate ILF's effectiveness on a carefully-controlled toy task and a realistic summarization task. Our experiments demonstrate that large language models accurately incorporate feedback and that finetuning with ILF scales well with the dataset size, even outperforming finetuning on human summaries. Learning from both language and comparison feedback outperforms learning from each alone, achieving human-level summarization performance.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Internal Pluralism and the Limits of Pairwise Comparisons
Under internal pluralism, forced local pairwise comparisons erase inseparable priorities and distort conflicted answers, while allowing indecision reports can sharply reduce queries needed to learn preference weights.
-
Formalizing Learning from Language Feedback with Provable Guarantees
Introduces a formal framework for learning from language feedback, a transfer eluder dimension complexity measure, and HELiX, a no-regret algorithm whose regret scales with this dimension.
-
Exploring the Limit of Outcome Reward for Learning Mathematical Reasoning
OREAL shows that outcome-reward RL with best-of-N positive behavior cloning, negative reward shaping, and token-level reweighting reaches state-of-the-art MATH-500 accuracy at 7B and 32B scale.
-
VulBinLLM: LLM-powered Vulnerability Detection for Stripped Binaries
An LLM pipeline that enriches decompiled code with vulnerability hints and then classifies CWEs reports high Juliet accuracy, but leaky hints and unmatched baselines weaken the claim.
-
Alignment and Safety in Large Language Models: Safety Mechanisms, Training Paradigms, and Emerging Challenges
A broad survey of LLM alignment that catalogs objectives, benchmarks, SFT/RLHF/DPO methods, and safety challenges, without contributing new experimental or theoretical results.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.