Abstract:The burgeoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have underscored the need for alignment to ensure these models act in accordance with human values and intentions. Existing alignment frameworks present constraints either in the form of expensive human effort or high computational costs. This paper explores a promising middle ground, where we employ a weak LLM that is significantly less resource-intensive than top-tier models, yet offers more automation than purely human feedback. We present a systematic study to evaluate and understand weak LLM's ability to generate feedback for alignment. Our empirical findings demonstrate that weak LLMs can provide feedback that rivals or even exceeds that of fully human-annotated data. Our study indicates a minimized impact of model size on feedback efficacy, shedding light on a scalable and sustainable alignment strategy. To deepen our understanding of alignment under weak LLM feedback, we conduct a series of qualitative and quantitative analyses, offering novel insights into the quality discrepancies between human feedback vs. weak LLM feedback.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### What problem does this paper attempt to solve? This paper aims to explore how to use the feedback generated by weak large language models (LLMs) to replace expensive human annotations or the high - computational cost of large LLMs in alignment tasks. Specifically, the paper addresses the following problems: 1. **Reducing alignment cost**: Existing alignment frameworks either rely on a large amount of human annotation, resulting in high labor costs, or use high - performance LLMs for feedback, bringing huge computational and financial costs. This paper explores an intermediate solution, that is, using weakly - resourced LLMs with lower resource consumption to provide feedback in order to achieve a more automated and cost - effective alignment method. 2. **Evaluating the feedback ability of weak LLMs**: The research community lacks a systematic evaluation of the performance of weak LLMs in alignment tasks. Through a series of experiments, this paper evaluates the feedback effects of weak LLMs on models of different scales and types, and compares them with pure human annotations and high - performance LLMs. 3. **Understanding the quality of weak LLM feedback**: Through qualitative and quantitative analysis of the quality differences between weak LLM feedback and human feedback, we can deeply understand the effectiveness and limitations of weak LLM feedback. ### Main contributions 1. **Proposing a new framework**: Developed a framework for alignment using weak LLM feedback, which combines labeled and unlabeled datasets and reduces the dependence on human annotation. 2. **Empirical research**: Through extensive experiments, it is shown that the feedback provided by weak LLMs (such as a 125M - parameter model) can match or even exceed the effect of pure human feedback, and the difference in feedback effects among supervised models of different scales (from weak to strong) is not significant. 3. **In - depth analysis**: Through qualitative and quantitative analysis, the quality differences between weak LLM feedback and human feedback are revealed. In particular, in some cases, the quality of weak LLM feedback is even better than that of human feedback. ### Conclusion Research shows that using weak LLMs for alignment can not only significantly reduce costs, but also achieve results comparable to or even better than human annotation in many cases. This provides new ideas and methods for future AI alignment research, especially in resource - limited situations. ### Formula representation The formulas involved in the paper are as follows: - Reward function optimization objective: \[ L_R=-\mathbb{E}_{(x, y_w, y_l)\in D}[\log\sigma(r(x, y_w)-r(x, y_l))] \] where $\sigma$ represents the sigmoid function. - Reinforcement learning optimization objective: \[ \max_{\pi_\theta}\mathbb{E}_{\hat{y}\sim\pi_\theta(\cdot|x)}[r(x, \hat{y})]-\beta\log\frac{\pi_\theta(\hat{y}|x)}{\pi_{\text{ref}}(\hat{y}|x)} \] - DPO loss function: \[ L_{DPO}(\pi_\theta; \pi_{\text{ref}}; D)=-\mathbb{E}_{(x, y_w, y_l)\in D}\left[\log\sigma\left(\beta\left(\log\frac{\pi_\theta(y_w|x)}{\pi_{\text{ref}}(y_w|x)}-\log\frac{\pi_\theta(y_l|x)}{\pi_{\text{ref}}(y_l|x)}\right)\right)\right] \] These formulas are used to describe the optimization objectives in the reward modeling and reinforcement learning processes.

Your Weak LLM is Secretly a Strong Teacher for Alignment

Human-Instruction-Free LLM Self-Alignment with Limited Samples

Understanding the Learning Dynamics of Alignment with Human Feedback

Aligners: Decoupling LLMs and Alignment

Constructive Large Language Models Alignment with Diverse Feedback

WildFeedback: Aligning LLMs With In-situ User Interactions And Feedback

Large Language Model Alignment: A Survey

Data-Efficient Alignment of Large Language Models with Human Feedback Through Natural Language

Defending Against Alignment-Breaking Attacks via Robustly Aligned LLM

Getting More from Less: Large Language Models are Good Spontaneous Multilingual Learners

Pedagogical Alignment of Large Language Models

Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment

Towards Scalable Automated Alignment of LLMs: A Survey

Reasons to Reject? Aligning Language Models with Judgments

Aligning LLMs with Individual Preferences via Interaction

Stealthy and Persistent Unalignment on Large Language Models via Backdoor Injections

PURE: Aligning LLM Via Pluggable Query Reformulation for Enhanced Helpfulness

Progressively Label Enhancement for Large Language Model Alignment

Alignment is not sufficient to prevent large language models from generating harmful information: A psychoanalytic perspective

The Unlocking Spell on Base LLMs: Rethinking Alignment via In-Context Learning

Aligner: Efficient Alignment by Learning to Correct