Update README.md
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
@@ -16,18 +16,15 @@ ONLY the prompts from [UltraFeedback](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HuggingFac
|
|
16 |
4. Use this LLM as the base model for the next iteration, repeating three times in total.
|
17 |
|
18 |
This overview provides a high-level summary of our approach.
|
19 |
-
We plan to release more detailed results and findings in the coming weeks on [Snorkel
|
20 |
|
21 |
#### Key Premises:
|
22 |
-
- **Specialization Requirement**:
|
23 |
- **Ease of Model Building**: Creating ranking/scoring/classification models is simpler than developing high-quality, manually annotated datasets for long-form responses.
|
24 |
-
- **Programmatic Alignment**: Using smaller but specialized teacher models (reward models) can incrementally align LLMs towards specific axes. We call this **Programmatic Alignment** -
|
25 |
|
26 |
#### Contemporary Work and Acknowledgements:
|
27 |
-
|
28 |
-
which proposes a similar approach for creating alignment pairs from a larger set of candidate responses but using their LLM as the reward model.
|
29 |
-
While this may work for general-purpose models, our experience has shown that task-specific reward models guided by SMEs are necessary for
|
30 |
-
most enterprise applications of LLMs to specific use cases.
|
31 |
|
32 |
#### Applications:
|
33 |
Unlike our customers, who have very specific use cases to align LLMs to,
|
@@ -38,10 +35,9 @@ We use the [Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2](https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-7
|
|
38 |
With this demonstration, we focus on the general approach of programmatic alignment.
|
39 |
|
40 |
For interest in building your **specialized internal reward models
|
41 |
-
that reflect your enterprises' needs**, please contact the Snorkel team or consider attending our
|
42 |
[**Enterprise LLM Summit: Building GenAI with Your Data on January 25, 2024**](https://snorkel.ai/event/enterprise-llm-summit/)
|
43 |
-
to learn more about "Programmatically
|
44 |
-
|
45 |
|
46 |
#### Result:
|
47 |
On [**Alpaca-Eval 2.0**](https://tatsu-lab.github.io/alpaca_eval/):
|
@@ -49,7 +45,7 @@ On [**Alpaca-Eval 2.0**](https://tatsu-lab.github.io/alpaca_eval/):
|
|
49 |
After applying the above methodology:
|
50 |
- This model scored **30.2** - ranked 3rd and the highest for an open-source base model at the time of publication.
|
51 |
- Utilizing the model with PairRM, which involved generating 16 responses and submitting the highest-scoring response by PairRM, we scored **34.86** - ranked 2nd.
|
52 |
-
The best model on the leaderboard is "gpt-4-turbo".
|
53 |
|
54 |
We recognize that the Alpaca-Eval 2.0 benchmark does not entirely capture the full range of capabilities and performances of LLMs.
|
55 |
However, in our current work, where the goal is to align with general "human preferences," Alpaca-Eval 2.0 serves as a suitable and representative benchmark.
|
@@ -57,14 +53,19 @@ Moving forward, we anticipate further contributions from the community regarding
|
|
57 |
|
58 |
## Limitations:
|
59 |
The model is a quick demonstration that the LLMs can be programmatically aligned using smaller specialized reward models.
|
60 |
-
It does not have any moderation mechanisms.
|
61 |
-
|
|
|
62 |
|
63 |
-
## Acknowledgments
|
64 |
- The Mistral AI Team for developing and releasing the advanced Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2 model.
|
65 |
- The author of the [Direct Preference Optimization paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18290) for the innovative approach
|
66 |
- The author of the [Pairwise Reward Model for LLMs paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02561) for the powerful general-purpose reward model
|
67 |
- The HuggingFace team for the DPO implementation under [The Alignment Handbook](https://github.com/huggingface/alignment-handbook)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68 |
|
69 |
## The Snorkel AI Team
|
70 |
-
Hoang Tran, Chris Glaze, Braden Hancock
|
|
|
16 |
4. Use this LLM as the base model for the next iteration, repeating three times in total.
|
17 |
|
18 |
This overview provides a high-level summary of our approach.
|
19 |
+
We plan to release more detailed results and findings in the coming weeks on the [Snorkel blog](https://snorkel.ai/blog/).
|
20 |
|
21 |
#### Key Premises:
|
22 |
+
- **Specialization Requirement**: For most enterprise use cases, using LLMs "off-the-shelf" falls short of production quality, necessitating additional fine-tuning and alignment.
|
23 |
- **Ease of Model Building**: Creating ranking/scoring/classification models is simpler than developing high-quality, manually annotated datasets for long-form responses.
|
24 |
+
- **Programmatic Alignment**: Using smaller but specialized teacher models (reward models) can incrementally align LLMs towards specific axes. We call this **Programmatic Alignment** - capturing domain knowledge in programmatic forms that can be used to guide LLM improvement.
|
25 |
|
26 |
#### Contemporary Work and Acknowledgements:
|
27 |
+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
|
29 |
#### Applications:
|
30 |
Unlike our customers, who have very specific use cases to align LLMs to,
|
|
|
35 |
With this demonstration, we focus on the general approach of programmatic alignment.
|
36 |
|
37 |
For interest in building your **specialized internal reward models
|
38 |
+
that reflect your enterprises' needs**, please contact the Snorkel AI team or consider attending our
|
39 |
[**Enterprise LLM Summit: Building GenAI with Your Data on January 25, 2024**](https://snorkel.ai/event/enterprise-llm-summit/)
|
40 |
+
to learn more about "Programmatically scaling human preferences and alignment in GenAI".
|
|
|
41 |
|
42 |
#### Result:
|
43 |
On [**Alpaca-Eval 2.0**](https://tatsu-lab.github.io/alpaca_eval/):
|
|
|
45 |
After applying the above methodology:
|
46 |
- This model scored **30.2** - ranked 3rd and the highest for an open-source base model at the time of publication.
|
47 |
- Utilizing the model with PairRM, which involved generating 16 responses and submitting the highest-scoring response by PairRM, we scored **34.86** - ranked 2nd.
|
48 |
+
The best model on the leaderboard is "gpt-4-turbo", which is also the judge of optimal responses.
|
49 |
|
50 |
We recognize that the Alpaca-Eval 2.0 benchmark does not entirely capture the full range of capabilities and performances of LLMs.
|
51 |
However, in our current work, where the goal is to align with general "human preferences," Alpaca-Eval 2.0 serves as a suitable and representative benchmark.
|
|
|
53 |
|
54 |
## Limitations:
|
55 |
The model is a quick demonstration that the LLMs can be programmatically aligned using smaller specialized reward models.
|
56 |
+
It does not have any moderation mechanisms.
|
57 |
+
We look forward to continuing to engage with the research community and our customers exploring optimal methods for gettings models to respect guardrails,
|
58 |
+
allowing for deployment in environments requiring moderated outputs.
|
59 |
|
60 |
+
## Acknowledgments:
|
61 |
- The Mistral AI Team for developing and releasing the advanced Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2 model.
|
62 |
- The author of the [Direct Preference Optimization paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18290) for the innovative approach
|
63 |
- The author of the [Pairwise Reward Model for LLMs paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02561) for the powerful general-purpose reward model
|
64 |
- The HuggingFace team for the DPO implementation under [The Alignment Handbook](https://github.com/huggingface/alignment-handbook)
|
65 |
+
- We would also like to acknowledge contemporary work published on arXiv a few days ago by Meta & NYU (Yuan, et al) in a paper called [Self-Rewarding Language Models](https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10020),
|
66 |
+
which proposes a similar approach for creating alignment pairs from a larger set of candidate responses, but using the LLM as the reward model.
|
67 |
+
While this may work for general-purpose models, our experience has shown that task-specific reward models guided by SMEs are necessary for most
|
68 |
+
enterprise applications of LLMs for specific use cases, which is why we focus on the use of external reward models.
|
69 |
|
70 |
## The Snorkel AI Team
|
71 |
+
Hoang Tran, Chris Glaze, Braden Hancock
|