Cited by 15Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSpeech and dialogue systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

SteerLM: Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF

Open access
Dong, Yi, Wang, Zhilin, Sreedhar, Makesh, Wu, Xianchao, Kuchaiev, Oleksii·2023·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023

Abstract

Model alignment with human preferences is an essential step in making Large Language Models (LLMs) helpful and consistent with human values.It typically consists of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) stages.However, RLHF faces inherent limitations stemming from a complex training setup and its tendency to align the model with implicit values that end users cannot control at run-time.Moreover, reward models in RLHF stage commonly rely on single-dimensional feedback as opposed to explicit, multifaceted signals that indicate attributes such as helpfulness, humor, and toxicity.To address these limitations, we propose STEERLM, a supervised finetuning method that empowers end-users to control responses during inference.STEERLM conditions responses to conform to an explicitly defined multi-dimensional set of attributes, thereby empowering a steerable AI capable of generating helpful and high-quality responses while maintaining customizability.Experiments show that STEERLM trained on open source datasets generates responses that are preferred by human and automatic evaluators to many state-of-the-art baselines trained with RLHF while being much easier to train.Try STEERLM at https://huggingface.co/ nvidia/SteerLM-llama2-13B

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.754

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 15

Metadata

Authors
Dong, Y., Wang, Z., Sreedhar, M., Wu, X., & Kuchaiev, O.
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023
Published
2023
Pages
11275-11288
OpenAlex
W4389520260
Cited by
15
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4
FWCI
2.66
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Nvidia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review