Refine-n-Judge: Curating High-Quality Preference Chains for LLM-Fine-Tuning
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable progress through preference-based fine-tuning, which critically depends on the quality of the underlying training data. While human feedback is essential for improving data quality, it is costly and does not scale well. In this paper, we introduce Refine-n-Judge, an automated iterative approach that leverages a single LLM as both a refiner and a judge to enhance dataset quality. Unlike existing iterative refinement methods, Refine-n-Judge employs an LLM to both generate refinements and explicitly evaluate each improvement, ensuring that every iteration meaningfully enhances the dataset without requiring additional human annotation or a separate reward model. At each step, the LLM refines a response and judges whether the refinement is an improvement over the previous answer. This process continues until the LLM prefers the initial answer over the refinement, indicating no further improvements. This produces sequences of increasing quality, preference-labeled responses ideal for fine-tuning. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Refine-n-Judge across a range of public datasets spanning five corpora, targeting tasks such as coding, math, and conversation. Models (Llama 3.1-8B and Llama 3.3-70B) fine-tuned on Refine-n-Judge-enhanced datasets were preferred by LLM judges in over 74% of comparisons against models tuned on the original dataset by GPT-4. Additionally, we report performance gains: +5% on AlpacaEval and AlpacaEval 2.0, and +19% on MT-Bench. Our results indicate that Refine-n-Judge produces high-quality datasets and scalable model improvements.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Self-rationalization improves LLM as a fine-grained judge
LLM-as-a-judge models have been used for evaluating both human and AI generated content, specifically by providing scores and rationales. Rationales, in addition to increasing transparency, help models learn to calibrate…
PReMISE: Policy Rubrics as Measurement Specifications for LLM Judges
LLM judges are increasingly used to evaluate open-ended responses, but their scores depend strongly on the rubrics that condition them. A vague rubric asking for a response to be ``helpful and factual'' can reward polish…
Adversarial RobustnessCriterAlign: Criterion-Centric Rationale Alignment for Code Preference Judging
Pairwise human preference prediction is central to evaluating code-generation systems, where quality often depends on task-specific trade-offs beyond functional correctness. While rubric-based LLM judges improve interpre…
Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks
The increasing use of LLMs as substitutes for humans in ``aligning'' LLMs has raised questions about their ability to replicate human judgments and preferences, especially in ambivalent scenarios where humans disagree. T…
AutoRubric-T2I: Robust Rule-Based Reward Model for Text-to-Image Alignment
Aligning Text-to-Image (T2I) generation models with human preferences increasingly relies on image reward models that score or rank generated images according to prompt alignment and perceptual quality. Existing reward m…