Direct Nash Optimization: Teaching Language Models to Self-Improve with General Preferences

Authors: Corby Rosset, Ching-An Cheng, Arindam Mitra, Michael Santacroce, Ahmed Awadallah, Tengyang Xie

License: CC BY 4.0

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2404.03715v1

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
, , , , In this paper, titled "Direct Nash Optimization: Teaching Language Models to Self-Improve with General Preferences," the authors explore post-training large language models (LLMs) by utilizing preference feedback from a potent oracle. This facilitates iterative enhancements within the model itself. The conventional method for post-training LLMs involves Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). However, this approach is limited by "point-wise" rewards and fails to capture intricate preference relationships. To address this, the authors introduce Direct Nash Optimization (DNO), an algorithm that optimizes over general preferences and exhibits monotonic improvement across iterations. In experimental trials, DNO outperforms formidable teachers like GPT-4 and achieves an impressive state-of-the-art win-rate on AlpacaEval 2.0. The paper also discusses observations related to new “large margin” training pairs decreasing in quantity as policy improves across iterations in DNO and highlights the utilization of an offline dataset for training purposes within their methodology.
AI-generated keywords: Direct Nash Optimization

AI-generated Key Points

  • The authors introduce Direct Nash Optimization (DNO) as an algorithm for post-training large language models (LLMs) using preference feedback.
  • DNO optimizes over general preferences, leading to monotonic improvement across iterations.
  • DNO outperforms GPT-4 and achieves a state-of-the-art win-rate on AlpacaEval 2.0 in experimental trials.
  • Observations show that new "large margin" training pairs decrease in quantity as policy improves across iterations in DNO.
  • The methodology includes the utilization of an offline dataset for training purposes.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: This paper studies post-training large language models (LLMs) using preference feedback from a powerful oracle to help a model iteratively improve over itself. The typical approach for post-training LLMs involves Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), which traditionally separates reward learning and subsequent policy optimization. However, such a reward maximization approach is limited by the nature of "point-wise" rewards (such as Bradley-Terry model), which fails to express complex intransitive or cyclic preference relations. While advances on RLHF show reward learning and policy optimization can be merged into a single contrastive objective for stability, they yet still remain tethered to the reward maximization framework. Recently, a new wave of research sidesteps the reward maximization presumptions in favor of directly optimizing over "pair-wise" or general preferences. In this paper, we introduce Direct Nash Optimization (DNO), a provable and scalable algorithm that marries the simplicity and stability of contrastive learning with theoretical generality from optimizing general preferences. Because DNO is a batched on-policy algorithm using a regression-based objective, its implementation is straightforward and efficient. Moreover, DNO enjoys monotonic improvement across iterations that help it improve even over a strong teacher (such as GPT-4). In our experiments, a resulting 7B parameter Orca-2.5 model aligned by DNO achieves the state-of-the-art win-rate against GPT-4-Turbo of 33% on AlpacaEval 2.0 (even after controlling for response length), an absolute gain of 26% (7% to 33%) over the initializing model. It outperforms models with far more parameters, including Mistral Large, Self-Rewarding LM (70B parameters), and older versions of GPT-4.

Submitted to arXiv on 04 Apr. 2024

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.