CodeUltraFeedback: An LLM-as-a-Judge Dataset for Aligning Large Language Models to Coding Preferences
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper introduces "CodeUltraFeedback," a dataset for aligning large language models (LLMs) to coding preferences.
- The dataset contains human feedback on code samples, which can be used to train LLMs to provide better code reviews and suggestions.
- The goal is to help LLMs better understand and align with human preferences for code quality and style.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers have created a new dataset called CodeUltraFeedback that can be used to train large language models (LLMs) to provide better feedback on computer code. LLMs are powerful AI systems that can understand and generate human language, but they don't always align with human preferences when it comes to coding.
The CodeUltraFeedback dataset contains feedback from humans on sample pieces of code. This feedback can be used to train LLMs to recognize patterns in what humans consider "good" or "bad" code, and to provide more relevant and useful feedback when reviewing code. The goal is to help LLMs become better at understanding and aligning with human preferences for code quality, style, and other factors.
By using this dataset to train LLMs, the researchers hope to create AI systems that can provide more accurate and helpful code reviews, suggestions for improvement, and other coding-related assistance. This could be useful for software developers, engineers, and anyone who works with code on a regular basis.
Technical Explanation
The CodeUltraFeedback dataset consists of human feedback on a variety of code samples, collected through a crowdsourcing platform. The feedback includes ratings, comments, and other insights on the quality, style, and overall "goodness" of the code. The researchers used this data to train large language models (LLMs) to provide more accurate and relevant code feedback.
In their experiments, the researchers compared the performance of LLMs trained on the CodeUltraFeedback dataset to LLMs trained on other coding-related datasets. They found that the CodeUltraFeedback-trained LLMs were better able to identify and provide feedback on various aspects of code quality, such as readability, efficiency, and adherence to best practices.
The researchers also explored the use of multi-perspective user preferences and self-generated preferences to further align the LLMs with human coding preferences. This involved incorporating additional information, such as user comments and the LLMs' own assessments of the code, into the training process.
Critical Analysis
The CodeUltraFeedback dataset and the researchers' approach are promising steps towards aligning LLMs with human preferences for coding. By using human feedback as a basis for training, the LLMs can learn to provide more relevant and useful code reviews and suggestions.
However, the researchers acknowledge that the dataset has some limitations. The feedback is mainly focused on simple code samples, and it may not capture the full complexity of real-world coding tasks. There is also the potential for biases in the human feedback, which could be reflected in the trained LLMs.
Additionally, the researchers note that further research is needed to explore the scalability of this approach and to address potential issues, such as the potential for LLMs to overfit to the training data or to struggle with more complex coding scenarios.
Conclusion
The CodeUltraFeedback dataset and the researchers' approach represent an important step towards aligning large language models with human preferences for coding. By using human feedback as a basis for training, the LLMs can learn to provide more accurate and useful code reviews and suggestions, which could be beneficial for software developers, engineers, and others who work with code on a regular basis.
While the dataset and approach have some limitations, the researchers' work highlights the potential for using LLMs to assist with coding tasks and the importance of aligning these models with human preferences. Further research and development in this area could lead to significant advancements in the field of AI-assisted coding and software development.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
CodeUltraFeedback: An LLM-as-a-Judge Dataset for Aligning Large Language Models to Coding Preferences
Martin Weyssow, Aton Kamanda, Houari Sahraoui
Evaluating the alignment of large language models (LLMs) with user-defined coding preferences is a challenging endeavour that requires a deep assessment of LLMs' outputs. Existing methods and benchmarks rely primarily on automated metrics and static analysis tools, which often fail to capture the nuances of user instructions and LLM outputs. To address this gap, we propose using the LLM-as-a-Judge methodology to evaluate the alignment of LLMs with coding preferences. Based on this approach, we present CodeUltraFeedback, a comprehensive dataset designed to facilitate the evaluation and improvement of LLM alignment. CodeUltraFeedback consists of 10,000 coding instructions, each annotated with four responses generated from a diverse pool of 14 LLMs. These responses are ranked based on five distinct coding preferences using GPT-3.5 as a judge, providing both numerical scores and detailed textual feedback. Our analysis of CodeUltraFeedback reveals that responses from GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are generally preferred over those from open-weight LLMs, highlighting significant differences in alignment between closed and open-weight models. In turn, we explore the usage of CodeUltraFeedback as feedback data to fine-tune and align CodeLlama-7B-Instruct using supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) with direct preference optimization (DPO). The resulting aligned CodeLlama-7B-Instruct model outperforms larger LLMs in terms of alignment with coding preferences and shows improved functional correctness on the HumanEval+ benchmark compared to the original instruct model. Therefore, our contributions bridge the gap in preference tuning of LLMs for code and set the stage for further advancements in model alignment and RLAIF in automated software engineering.
Read more8/9/2024
0
WildFeedback: Aligning LLMs With In-situ User Interactions And Feedback
Taiwei Shi, Zhuoer Wang, Longqi Yang, Ying-Chun Lin, Zexue He, Mengting Wan, Pei Zhou, Sujay Jauhar, Xiaofeng Xu, Xia Song, Jennifer Neville
As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, aligning these models with human preferences has emerged as a critical challenge. Traditional alignment methods, relying on human or LLM annotated datasets, are limited by their resource-intensive nature, inherent subjectivity, and the risk of feedback loops that amplify model biases. To overcome these limitations, we introduce WildFeedback, a novel framework that leverages real-time, in-situ user interactions to create preference datasets that more accurately reflect authentic human values. WildFeedback operates through a three-step process: feedback signal identification, preference data construction, and user-guided evaluation. We applied this framework to a large corpus of user-LLM conversations, resulting in a rich preference dataset that reflects genuine user preferences. This dataset captures the nuances of user preferences by identifying and classifying feedback signals within natural conversations, thereby enabling the construction of more representative and context-sensitive alignment data. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that LLMs fine-tuned on WildFeedback exhibit significantly improved alignment with user preferences, as evidenced by both traditional benchmarks and our proposed user-guided evaluation. By incorporating real-time feedback from actual users, WildFeedback addresses the scalability, subjectivity, and bias challenges that plague existing approaches, marking a significant step toward developing LLMs that are more responsive to the diverse and evolving needs of their users. In summary, WildFeedback offers a robust, scalable solution for aligning LLMs with true human values, setting a new standard for the development and evaluation of user-centric language models.
Read more8/29/2024
0
Aligning LLMs through Multi-perspective User Preference Ranking-based Feedback for Programming Question Answering
Hongyu Yang, Liyang He, Min Hou, Shuanghong Shen, Rui Li, Jiahui Hou, Jianhui Ma, Junda Zhao
Code Community Question Answering (CCQA) seeks to tackle programming-related issues, thereby boosting productivity in both software engineering and academic research. Recent advancements in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) have transformed the fine-tuning process of Large Language Models (LLMs) to produce responses that closely mimic human behavior. Leveraging LLMs with RLHF for practical CCQA applications has thus emerged as a promising area of study. Unlike standard code question-answering tasks, CCQA involves multiple possible answers, with varying user preferences for each response. Additionally, code communities often show a preference for new APIs. These challenges prevent LLMs from generating responses that cater to the diverse preferences of users in CCQA tasks. To address these issues, we propose a novel framework called Aligning LLMs through Multi-perspective User Preference Ranking-based Feedback for Programming Question Answering (ALMupQA) to create user-focused responses. Our approach starts with Multi-perspective Preference Ranking Alignment (MPRA), which synthesizes varied user preferences based on the characteristics of answers from code communities. We then introduce a Retrieval-augmented In-context Learning (RIL) module to mitigate the problem of outdated answers by retrieving responses to similar questions from a question bank. Due to the limited availability of high-quality, multi-answer CCQA datasets, we also developed a dataset named StaCCQA from real code communities. Extensive experiments demonstrated the effectiveness of the ALMupQA framework in terms of accuracy and user preference. Compared to the base model, ALMupQA showed nearly an 11% improvement in BLEU, with increases of 20% and 17.5% in BERTScore and CodeBERTScore, respectively.
Read more6/4/2024
0
Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges
Aman Singh Thakur, Kartik Choudhary, Venkat Srinik Ramayapally, Sankaran Vaidyanathan, Dieuwke Hupkes
Offering a promising solution to the scalability challenges associated with human evaluation, the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs). However, there are still many open questions about the strengths and weaknesses of this paradigm, and what potential biases it may hold. In this paper, we present a comprehensive study of the performance of various LLMs acting as judges. We leverage TriviaQA as a benchmark for assessing objective knowledge reasoning of LLMs and evaluate them alongside human annotations which we found to have a high inter-annotator agreement. Our study includes 9 judge models and 9 exam taker models -- both base and instruction-tuned. We assess the judge model's alignment across different model sizes, families, and judge prompts. Among other results, our research rediscovers the importance of using Cohen's kappa as a metric of alignment as opposed to simple percent agreement, showing that judges with high percent agreement can still assign vastly different scores. We find that both Llama-3 70B and GPT-4 Turbo have an excellent alignment with humans, but in terms of ranking exam taker models, they are outperformed by both JudgeLM-7B and the lexical judge Contains, which have up to 34 points lower human alignment. Through error analysis and various other studies, including the effects of instruction length and leniency bias, we hope to provide valuable lessons for using LLMs as judges in the future.
Read more6/19/2024