Publication:
Anchored Preference Optimization and Contrastive Revisions: Addressing Underspecification in Alignment
| dc.contributor.author | D'Oosterlinck, Karel | |
| dc.contributor.author | Xu, Winnie | |
| dc.contributor.author | Develder, Chris | |
| dc.contributor.author | Demeester, Thomas | |
| dc.contributor.author | Singh, Amanpreet | |
| dc.contributor.author | Potts, Christopher | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kiela, Douwe | |
| dc.contributor.author | Mehri, Shikib | |
| dc.contributor.imecauthor | D'Oosterlinck, Karel | |
| dc.contributor.imecauthor | Develder, Chris | |
| dc.contributor.imecauthor | Demeester, Thomas | |
| dc.contributor.orcidimec | D'Oosterlinck, Karel::0000-0003-1695-1014 | |
| dc.contributor.orcidimec | Develder, Chris::0000-0003-2707-4176 | |
| dc.contributor.orcidimec | Demeester, Thomas::0000-0002-9901-5768 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-05-19T10:36:19Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-05-17T05:45:22Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-05-19T10:36:19Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2025 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Large Language Models (LLMs) are often aligned using contrastive alignment objectives and preference pair datasets. The interaction between model, paired data, and objective makes alignment a complicated procedure, sometimes producing subpar results. We study this and find that (i) preference data gives a better learning signal when the underlying responses are contrastive, and (ii) alignment objectives lead to better performance when they specify more control over the model during training. Based on these insights, we introduce Contrastive Learning from AI Revisions (CLAIR), a data-creation method which leads to more contrastive preference pairs, and Anchored Preference Optimization (APO), a controllable and more stable alignment objective. We align Llama-3-8B-Instruct using various comparable datasets and alignment objectives and measure MixEval-Hard scores, which correlate highly with human judgments. The CLAIR preferences lead to the strongest performance out of all datasets, and APO consistently outperforms less controllable objectives. Our best model, trained on 32K CLAIR preferences with APO, improves Llama-3-8B-Instruct by 7.65%, closing the gap with GPT4-turbo by 45%. Our code and datasets are available. | |
| dc.description.wosFundingText | We thank Kawin Ethayarajh, Eugen Hotaj, and Nathan Lambert for their feedback. We thank Stas Bekman for his help and support. K. D. gratefully acknowledges funding from the FWO Fundamental Research PhD Fellowship (11632223N). We also thank our anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, which helped improve the clarity and quality of this work. | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1162/tacl_a_00748 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2307-387X | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://imec-publications.be/handle/20.500.12860/45682 | |
| dc.publisher | MIT PRESS | |
| dc.source.beginpage | 442 | |
| dc.source.endpage | 460 | |
| dc.source.issue | / | |
| dc.source.journal | TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS | |
| dc.source.numberofpages | 19 | |
| dc.source.volume | 13 | |
| dc.title | Anchored Preference Optimization and Contrastive Revisions: Addressing Underspecification in Alignment | |
| dc.type | Journal article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| Files | Original bundle
| |
| Publication available in collections: |