Iterative Label Refinement Matters More than Preference Optimization under Weak Supervision
Yaowen Ye Cassidy Laidlaw Jacob Steinhardt
Language model (LM) post-training relies on two stages of human supervision: task demonstrations for supervised finetuning (SFT), followed by preference comparisons for reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). As LMs become more capable, the tasks they are given become harder to supervise. Will post-training remain effective under unreliable supervision? To test this, we simulate unreliable demonstrations and comparison feedback using small LMs and time-constrained humans. We find that in the presence of unreliable supervision, SFT still retains some effectiveness, but DPO (a common RLHF algorithm) fails to improve the model beyond SFT. To address this, we propose *iterative label refinement* (ILR) as an alternative to RLHF. ILR improves the SFT data by using comparison feedback to decide whether human demonstrations should be replaced by model-generated alternatives, then retrains the model via SFT on the updated data. SFT+ILR outperforms SFT+DPO on several tasks with unreliable supervision (math, coding, and safe instruction-following). Our findings suggest that as LMs are used for complex tasks where human supervision is unreliable, RLHF may no longer be the best use of human comparison feedback; instead, it is better to direct feedback towards improving the training *data* rather than continually training the *model*. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/helloelwin/iterative-label-refinement.
unreliable human supervision, language model post-training, scalable oversight
We find SFT+DPO breaks down under unreliable supervision and show that it is better to direct unreliable feedback towards improving the training *data* rather than continually training the *model*.