PreprintCited by 80Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Preference Ranking Optimization for Human Alignment

Open access
Song, Feifan, Yu, Bowen, Li, Minghao, Yu, Haiyang, Huang, Fei, Li, Yongbin, Wang, Houfeng·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) often contain misleading content, emphasizing the need to align them with human values to ensure secure AI systems. Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has been employed to achieve this alignment. However, it encompasses two main drawbacks: (1) RLHF exhibits complexity, instability, and sensitivity to hyperparameters in contrast to SFT. (2) Despite massive trial-and-error, multiple sampling is reduced to pair-wise contrast, thus lacking contrasts from a macro perspective. In this paper, we propose Preference Ranking Optimization (PRO) as an efficient SFT algorithm to directly fine-tune LLMs for human alignment. PRO extends the pair-wise contrast to accommodate preference rankings of any length. By iteratively contrasting candidates, PRO instructs the LLM to prioritize the best response while progressively ranking the rest responses. In this manner, PRO effectively transforms human alignment into aligning the probability ranking of n responses generated by LLM with the preference ranking of humans towards these responses. Experiments have shown that PRO outperforms baseline algorithms, achieving comparable results to ChatGPT and human responses through automatic-based, reward-based, GPT-4, and human evaluations.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.17492

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Automated metrics like BLEU and ROUGE often do not correlate with human judgment, making them unreliable for evaluation and training.

    “Automated metrics like BLEU and ROUGE [99] often do not correlate with human judgment [103, 164, 166, 177], making them unreliable for evaluation and training.”

    From RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as [177]

    The Human and GPT-4 Evaluation section says reward models may distort human preferences, and Evaluation Metrics calls human evaluation the gold standard. But the paper does not say BLEU or ROUGE often fail to correlate with human judgment or are unreliable for evaluation and training; it uses BLEU to assess text quality. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Gao, L.; Schulman, J.; and Hilton, J. 2022. Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization. arXiv:2210.10760. · arXiv
  2. Precup, D.; and Teh, Y. W., eds., Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 2285-2294.
  3. PMLR.
  4. Philadel- phia, Pennsylvania, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  5. Wang, Y.; Kordi, Y.; Mishra, S.; Liu, A.; Smith, N. A.; Khashabi, D.; and Hajishirzi, H. 2022. Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Model with Self Generated Instructions. arXiv:2212.10560. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Song, F., Yu, B., Li, M., Yu, H., Huang, F., Li, Y., & Wang, H.
Affiliations
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Alibaba Group (China) (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Volume
38
Issue
17
Pages
18990-18998
ISSN
2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4393160410
Cited by
77
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 6
FWCI
20.95
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (62036001)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
human alignment, large language models, preference ranking, supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning from human feedback, AI alignment

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