Self-Judge: Selective Instruction Following with Alignment Self-Evaluation
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper proposes a novel approach called "Self-Judge" for selective instruction following with alignment self-evaluation.
- It explores the ability of language models to judge their own alignment with given instructions and selectively follow instructions they are confident they can complete correctly.
- The authors conduct a series of experiments to evaluate the performance of their Self-Judge approach compared to a baseline.
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores a new way for AI language models to follow instructions more effectively. The key idea is that the AI can evaluate how well it understands the instructions and judge whether it can carry them out correctly. This "self-judgment" allows the AI to selectively follow the instructions it is confident it can complete, rather than trying to follow all instructions blindly.
The researchers test this Self-Judge approach in a series of experiments, comparing it to a standard approach where the AI simply tries to follow all instructions without evaluating its own understanding. The results suggest that the Self-Judge method can lead to better performance, as the AI is able to focus on the instructions it is most likely to complete correctly.
This work is part of a broader effort to improve the ability of large language models to follow instructions and stay aligned with human intentions. By giving AI systems a way to assess their own understanding, researchers hope to create more reliable and trustworthy AI assistants that can better assist humans with a variety of tasks.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a novel approach called "Self-Judge" that enables language models to selectively follow instructions based on their own self-evaluation of alignment. The key components of the Self-Judge approach are:
-
Alignment Prediction Model: The language model is trained to predict how well it will be able to follow a given instruction, using features like the instruction text and the model's internal representations.
-
Selective Instruction Following: Based on the alignment prediction, the model selectively chooses which instructions to follow, focusing on those it is most confident it can complete correctly.
The authors evaluate the Self-Judge approach on a range of instruction-following tasks and compare it to a baseline model that simply tries to follow all instructions without self-evaluation. The results show that the Self-Judge model is able to achieve better overall performance by avoiding mistakes on instructions it is not well-aligned with.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents an interesting and potentially valuable approach for improving the instruction-following capabilities of language models. The key strengths of the Self-Judge method are the ability to assess alignment and the selective following of instructions, which could lead to more reliable and trustworthy AI assistants.
However, the paper does not fully address the potential limitations and challenges of this approach. For example, it is unclear how the alignment prediction model is trained and how robust it is to different types of instructions or edge cases. There are also open questions about the generalization of the Self-Judge approach to more complex, open-ended tasks beyond the specific experiments presented.
Additionally, the paper does not delve into the potential societal implications of this technology, such as the risks of AI systems selectively following instructions in ways that could be misaligned with human values and intentions. Further research is needed to understand the broader ramifications of this work.
Overall, the Self-Judge approach is a promising step forward, but more work is needed to fully understand its capabilities, limitations, and potential impacts.
Conclusion
The "Self-Judge" paper proposes a novel approach for improving the instruction-following capabilities of language models by enabling them to selectively follow instructions based on their own self-evaluation of alignment. The key contributions of this work are the alignment prediction model and the selective instruction following mechanism, which show promise in improving the overall performance of language models on instruction-following tasks.
While the paper presents an interesting and potentially valuable technique, it also raises questions about the limitations, challenges, and broader implications of this approach. Continued research and careful consideration of the societal impacts will be essential as this technology continues to evolve.
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
Self-Judge: Selective Instruction Following with Alignment Self-Evaluation
Hai Ye, Hwee Tou Ng
Pre-trained large language models (LLMs) can be tailored to adhere to human instructions through instruction tuning. However, due to shifts in the distribution of test-time data, they may not always execute instructions accurately, potentially generating factual errors or misaligned content when acting as chat assistants. To enhance the reliability of LLMs in following instructions, we propose the study of selective instruction following, whereby the system declines to execute instructions if the anticipated response quality is low. We train judge models that can predict numerical quality scores for model responses. To address data scarcity, we introduce Self-J, a novel self-training framework for developing judge models without needing human-annotated quality scores. Our method leverages the model's inherent self-evaluation capability to extract information about response quality from labeled instruction-tuning data. It incorporates a gold reference answer to facilitate self-evaluation and recalibrates by assessing the semantic similarity between the response sample and the gold reference. During the training phase, we implement self-distillation as a regularization technique to enhance the capability of reference-free estimation. To validate alignment evaluation on general instruction-following tasks, we collect large-scale high-quality instructions from Hugging Face for model training and evaluation. Extensive experiments on five open-source models show that our method correlates much more with GPT-4 than strong baselines, e.g., supervised models distilled from GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-turbo. Our analysis shows our model's strong generalization across domains. Additionally, our judge models serve as good reward models, e.g., boosting WizardLM-13B-V1.2 from 89.17 to 92.48 and from 12.03 to 15.90 in version v1 and v2 of AlpacaEval respectively using best-of-32 sampling with our judge models.
Read more9/4/2024
470
Meta-Rewarding Language Models: Self-Improving Alignment with LLM-as-a-Meta-Judge
Tianhao Wu, Weizhe Yuan, Olga Golovneva, Jing Xu, Yuandong Tian, Jiantao Jiao, Jason Weston, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar
Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly surpassing human knowledge in many domains. While improving these models traditionally relies on costly human data, recent self-rewarding mechanisms (Yuan et al., 2024) have shown that LLMs can improve by judging their own responses instead of relying on human labelers. However, existing methods have primarily focused on improving model responses rather than judgment capabilities, resulting in rapid saturation during iterative training. To address this issue, we introduce a novel Meta-Rewarding step to the self-improvement process, where the model judges its own judgements and uses that feedback to refine its judgment skills. Surprisingly, this unsupervised approach improves the model's ability to judge {em and} follow instructions, as demonstrated by a win rate improvement of Llama-3-8B-Instruct from 22.9% to 39.4% on AlpacaEval 2, and 20.6% to 29.1% on Arena-Hard. These results strongly suggest the potential for self-improving models without human supervision.
Read more7/31/2024
0
Evaluating the Evaluator: Measuring LLMs' Adherence to Task Evaluation Instructions
Bhuvanashree Murugadoss, Christian Poelitz, Ian Drosos, Vu Le, Nick McKenna, Carina Suzana Negreanu, Chris Parnin, Advait Sarkar
LLMs-as-a-judge is a recently popularized method which replaces human judgements in task evaluation (Zheng et al. 2024) with automatic evaluation using LLMs. Due to widespread use of RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback), state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT4 and Llama3 are expected to have strong alignment with human preferences when prompted for a quality judgement, such as the coherence of a text. While this seems beneficial, it is not clear whether the assessments by an LLM-as-a-judge constitute only an evaluation based on the instructions in the prompts, or reflect its preference for high-quality data similar to its fine-tune data. To investigate how much influence prompting the LLMs-as-a-judge has on the alignment of AI judgements to human judgements, we analyze prompts with increasing levels of instructions about the target quality of an evaluation, for several LLMs-as-a-judge. Further, we compare to a prompt-free method using model perplexity as a quality measure instead. We aggregate a taxonomy of quality criteria commonly used across state-of-the-art evaluations with LLMs and provide this as a rigorous benchmark of models as judges. Overall, we show that the LLMs-as-a-judge benefit only little from highly detailed instructions in prompts and that perplexity can sometimes align better with human judgements than prompting, especially on textual quality.
Read more8/19/2024
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