The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
OpenChat: Advancing Open-source Language Models with Mixed-Quality Data
Abstract
Nowadays, open-source large language models like LLaMA have emerged. Recent developments have incorporated supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning fine-tuning (RLFT) to align these models with human goals. However, SFT methods treat all training data with mixed quality equally, while RLFT methods require high-quality pairwise or ranking-based preference data. In this study, we present a novel framework, named OpenChat, to advance open-source language models with mixed-quality data. Specifically, we consider the general SFT training data, consisting of a small amount of expert data mixed with a large proportion of sub-optimal data, without any preference labels. We propose the C(onditioned)-RLFT, which regards different data sources as coarse-grained reward labels and learns a class-conditioned policy to leverage complementary data quality information. Interestingly, the optimal policy in C-RLFT can be easily solved through single-stage, RL-free supervised learning, which is lightweight and avoids costly human preference labeling. Through extensive experiments on three standard benchmarks, our openchat-13b fine-tuned with C-RLFT achieves the highest average performance among all 13b open-source language models. Moreover, we use AGIEval to validate the model generalization performance, in which only openchat-13b surpasses the base model. Finally, we conduct a series of analyses to shed light on the effectiveness and robustness of OpenChat. Our code, data, and models are publicly available at https://github.com/imoneoi/openchat and https://huggingface.co/openchat.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The impact of post-training interventions like Chain-of-Thought and Self-Consistency can be predicted as language model capabilities continue to improve.
“we show how to predict the impact of post-training interventions like Chain-of-Thought and Self-Consistency as language model capabilities continue to improve.”
From Observational Scaling Laws and the Predictability of Language Model Performance (2024) · cites this paper as [97]
The scaling laws can reliably predict the gains of post-training techniques such as Chain-of-Thought and Self-Consistency at scale, even when fitted on weak models (sub Llama-2 7B).
“We show that our scaling laws can reliably predict the gains of post-training techniques, such as Chain-of-Thought [99] and Self-Consistency [97] at scale, even when we fit our scaling laws on weak models (sub Llama-2 7B).”
From Observational Scaling Laws and the Predictability of Language Model Performance (2024) · cites this paper as [97]
Using observational scaling laws, it is possible to make relatively accurate predictions on the effectiveness of techniques such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Self-Consistency (SC) as model scale increases.
“Using observational scaling laws, we show that it is possible to make relatively accurate predictions on the effectiveness of techniques such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) [99] and Self-Consistency (SC) [97] as model scale increases.”
From Observational Scaling Laws and the Predictability of Language Model Performance (2024) · cites this paper as [97]
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
AGIEval: A Human-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Models
Zhong, W., Cui, R., Guo, Y., Liang, Y., Lu, S., Wang, Y., Saied, A., Chen, W., & Duan, N. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.06364 · Cited by 211 · cited 6×
“Furthermore, we also use AGIEval (Zhong et al., 2023) to prove the gen-1 eralization, where openchat-13b also achieves the top-1 average accuracy among all 13b open-source language models.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generative language models exhibit social identity biases
Hu, T., Kyrychenko, Y., Rathje, S., Collier, N., van der Linden, S., & Roozenbeek, J. (2024) · Nature Computational Science · doi:10.1038/s43588-024-00741-1 · Cited by 100
Performance of Large Language Models on Medical Oncology Examination Questions
Longwell, J. B., Hirsch, I., Binder, F., Gonzalez Conchas, G. A., Mau, D., Jang, R., Krishnan, R. G., & Grant, R. C. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.17641 · Cited by 81
Benchmarking Benchmark Leakage in Large Language Models
Xu, R., Wang, Z., Fan, R.-Z., & Liu, P. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.18824 · Cited by 6
Evaluating the Long-Term Memory of Large Language Models
Jia, Z., Liu, Q., Li, H., Chen, Y., & Liu, J. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1014 · Cited by 5
“5-0106 (Wang et al., 2023a), and Qwen1.”
Observational Scaling Laws and the Predictability of Language Model Performance
Ruan, Y., Maddison, C. J., & Hashimoto, T. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.10938 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, G., Cheng, S., Zhan, X., Li, X., Song, S., & Liu, Y.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2309.11235
- References
- 1
- Type
- Preprint
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