Comparing Bad Apples to Good Oranges: Aligning Large Language Models via Joint Preference Optimization
<|reference_start|>Comparing Bad Apples to Good Oranges: Aligning Large Language Models via Joint Preference Optimization: A common technique for aligning large language models (LLMs) relies on acquiring human preferences by comparing multiple generations conditioned on a fixed context. This only leverages the pairwise comparisons when the generations are placed in an identical context. However, such conditional rankings often fail to capture the complex and multidimensional aspects of human preferences. In this work, we revisit the traditional paradigm of preference acquisition and propose a new axis that is based on eliciting preferences jointly over the instruction-response pairs. While prior preference optimizations are designed for conditional ranking protocols (e.g., DPO), our proposed preference acquisition protocol introduces DOVE, a new preference optimization objective that upweights the joint probability of the chosen instruction-response pair over the rejected instruction-response pair. Interestingly, we find that the LLM trained with joint instruction-response preference data using DOVE outperforms the LLM trained with DPO by 5.2% and 3.3% win-rate for the summarization and open-ended dialogue datasets, respectively. Our findings reveal that joint preferences over instruction and response pairs can significantly enhance the alignment of LLMs by tapping into a broader spectrum of human preference elicitation. The data and code is available at https://github.com/Hritikbansal/dove.<|reference_end|>
@article{bansal2024comparing,
    title={Comparing Bad Apples to Good Oranges: Aligning Large Language Models via
  Joint Preference Optimization},
    author={Hritik Bansal, Ashima Suvarna, Gantavya Bhatt, Nanyun Peng, Kai-Wei
  Chang, Aditya Grover},
    journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00530},
    year={2024},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    eprint={2404.00530},
    primaryClass={cs.CL cs.AI cs.LG}
}