Principle-Driven Self-Alignment of Language Models from Scratch with Minimal Human Supervision

Recent AI-assistant agents, such as ChatGPT, predominantly rely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with human annotations and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to align the output of large language models (LLMs) with human intentions, ensuring they are helpful, ethical, and reliable. However, this dependence can significantly constrain the true potential of AI-assistant agents due to the high cost of obtaining human supervision and the related issues on quality, reliability, diversity, self-consistency, and undesirable biases. To address these challenges, we propose a novel approach called SELF-ALIGN, which combines principle-driven reasoning and the generative power of LLMs for the self-alignment of AI agents with minimal human supervision. Our approach encompasses four stages: first, we use an LLM to generate synthetic prompts, and a topic-guided method to augment the prompt diversity; second, we use a small set of human-written principles for AI models to follow, and guide the LLM through in-context learning from demonstrations (of principles application) to produce helpful, ethical, and reliable responses to user's queries; third, we fine-tune the original LLM with the high-quality self-aligned responses so that the resulting model can generate desirable responses for each query directly without the principle set and the demonstrations anymore; and finally, we offer a refinement step to address the issues of overly-brief or indirect responses. Applying SELF-ALIGN to the LLaMA-65b base language model, we develop an AI assistant named Dromedary. With fewer than 300 lines of human annotations (including<200 seed prompts, 16 generic principles, and 5 exemplars for in-context learning). Dromedary significantly surpasses the performance of several state-of-the-art AI systems, including Text-Davinci-003 and Alpaca, on benchmark datasets with various settings.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer PEmx7/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-04

Summary

The paper proposes a new method to generate diversified, principle-guided synthetic data from LLM itself to ease requirement of large amount of annotated instruction-following data for supervised fine-tuning task for LLMs. The generation process follows four steps. First step is to generate adversarial topic-guided instructions, second step is generate responses using in-context learning with pre-defined principles, third step is supervised fine-tuning with generated instruction-following data. Fourth step is to leverage context distillation for verbose cloning. `LLaMA-65b` model is fine-tuned with the data generated from the aforementioned approach. Evaluations are conducted on TruthfulQA and Bigbench-HHH Eval dataset. The fine-tuned model shows strong performance.

Strengths

The paper combines the approaches of self-instruct paper and constitution AI paper and proposed the topic-guided, principle-following self-instruct way of data generation which could ease requirement of large amount of annotated data and improve diversity of instruction-following data. Although nothing is new, the paper follows a clear and logical path to generate synthetic data in the era of LLMs. Given a strong pretrained model, we have reason to believe this will work pretty well which is to some extent verified in the evaluation results.

Weaknesses

- The pretrained LLMs are not instruction fine-tuned. It could be challenging to generate clean topic-guided instructions and principle-following response. The paper didn't talk if there is any filtering step following these generation steps. - How much data is generated, how much data are there in the eval set. These numbers are not shown in the paper clearly. - Evaluation is not enough. We might need more evaluations on instruction-following dataset - Verbose clone is not working well, and no reason or discussion is given as why this is the case.

Questions

- The topics are generated from a red-teaming (adversarial) way, where the LLM is not supposed to perform well. Then how do we guarantee the quality of generation of responses? - Can you give more intuition of verbose tax in the paper instead of just giving the concept? The `alignment tax` is only seen on smaller scale models. - Can you tell how much data are generated in the process and used to fine-tune the model - At the starting point, when model is not trained to understand instructions, can it generate topics and new instructions well?

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

None is given

Reviewer FPHi6/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-06

Summary

This paper proposes Self-Align, a method for aligning a language model from scratch (without previous RLHF training) with fewer annotations. Self-Align works by using the LM to generate a set of example instructions/tasks, generating from the LM conditioned on the instruction + a human-written set of principles, and then distilling this back into the model by finetuning without the principles and demonstrations in context. The paper shows that this method improves performance/accuracy and (synthetic human) ratings on variety of benchmarks.

Strengths

- simple and clearly presented method - strong performance / thorough comparison to both open- and closed-source baselines

Weaknesses

- generally seems to underperform Vicuna, even though the Dromedary model is 5x larger. I still see that the Self-Align methodology could be a contribution (with better understanding of how much the different parts of the methodology matter), but there may not be a reason to build on the Dromedary model when Vicuna is available / more accessible in size. - If this is the case then perhaps the paper could be stronger if it shows that the Self-Align methodology still provides improvements *on top of* Vicuna's alignment (i.e. applying Self-Align with Vicuna as the base model). - lacking in ablations: I don't have a great sense of how much the different design choices are contributing to the final performance of the model, e.g.: sensitivity to self-instruct instructions, particularly the 20 "topic-specific prompts" (were these hand-crafted to match the downstream tasks?), importance of / sensitivity to ICL examples during self-alignment (both the specific 5 examples and the number of examples). It would be great to get a sense of e.g. variance across prompts to understand how much of the method works because of the specific prompts the authors crafted, as opposed to the methodology in general.

Questions

- l36: what are "topic-specific prompts"? - sec 3.4 verbose cloning: are the model's brief responses primarily because the ICL examples are short? - is the verbose cloning process simply repeating principle engraving with a longer demonstration in context, or is there something else going on here? - any idea why verbose cloning often decreases performance? Can readers conclude that verbose cloning hurts accuracy but makes the model's answers more "stylistically" aligned (hence the improvement on the Vicuna evals)? - sec 4.2.1 truthfulQA: does Dromedary outperform Vicuna on MC? Why weren't all the models tested on MC?

Rating

6: Weak Accept: Technically solid, moderate-to-high impact paper, with no major concerns with respect to evaluation, resources, reproducibility, ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

Yes

Reviewer Yvp37/10 · confidence 5/52023-07-07

Summary

The authors use the self-instruct approach combined with principle-driven prompting to self-instruct a pre-trained LLM. The instruction/response generation generally refers to what self-instruct and Alpaca did. The principle-driven prompting can be treated as a SFT version of Constitutional AI. Self-instructed LLaMA-65B can achieve slightly worse performance than ChatGPT, while outperforms the base LLaMA and Alpaca.

Strengths

1. The principle-driven prompting is a very insightful idea to generate a large amount of fine-tuning data with minimal human annotation. The cost of labeling data for LLM alignment is a pain point in today's LLM development. The proposed method can be a worth-attempting approach for researchers with limited labeling budget. 2. The verbose version training and the discussion of verbose tax is very insightful. How to balance model's performance on specific tasks and its HHH is always an important question in the field. The authors show that simply SFT with context distillation has some limitations but can still reach better performance than non principle-driven distilled models. 3. The prompt design is very detailed and careful. Although the idea is clearly inspired by self-instruct and Constitutional AI, the details of the prompt design should be still considered as a novel contribution and helpful to the community.

Weaknesses

1. The paper doesn't cover preference data generation and thus not applicable to RL tuning. A lot of OpenAI's work and talks (InstructGPT etc.) have stated the importance and necessity of RLHF. The model may finally face a performance ceiling if only using the current SFT-style self-instruct, which might be where the performance gap comes from. This is not only a con of this paper but also for those LLaMA family papers including Alpaca, Vicuna, etc. 2. The self-instruct style of data generation may lead to a narrow data distribution, e.g., the base LLM is not likely to generate a complex math problem and its answer --- and therefore the tuned model would fail to solve difficult math problems (e.g. possibly poor performance on MATH benchmark). This problem may be solved by adjusting the seed prompts and principles. But in general, how this approach generalize to different tasks is not well-discussed.

Questions

line 152, 153: new instructions novel instructions. Duplicated.

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

5: You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work and checked the math/other details carefully.

Soundness

4 excellent

Presentation

4 excellent

Contribution

4 excellent

Limitations

In the paper, actually there is no fair comparison on fine-tuning on human labeled data v.s. fine-tuning on self-instruct generated data. Dromedary v.s. ChatGPT/InstructGPT, they have different base model. Dromedary v.s. Alpaca/Vicuna, latter's data are not human labeled. But this is a very important question for the developers in LLM alignment teams as they have to decide whether to spend money on human labeling and how much. The discussion on this topic is kind of beyond this paper, but is an important question remains in future work.

Reviewer EoHL7/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-07

Summary

The authors study the problem of language model alignment and propose to leveraged hand-crafted prompts, principles, and examples to provide guidance, instead of relying on manually annotated human preference data. The authors make comparisons with various ai systems and the results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

Strengths

The studied problem is important, the proposed solution is novel, and the empirical performance is good. Also, systematic analyses are provided to better understand the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Weaknesses

The experiments mainly focus on demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. It would be better to have more analyses on the algorithm design. For example, whether the effectiveness of the algorithm has a heavy dependency on the number/quality of prompts.

Questions

What are the computation requirements of the proposed algorithm?

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

As mentioned before, it would be better to have analyses of the performance with various number of prompts/examples.

Reviewer VSmd6/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-27

Summary

Paper presents a SFT approach for instruction fine-tuning with minimal supervision. (1) First uses self-instruct approach to augment instructions;\ (2) Using human-written rules & in-context demonstrations for thought process of response, final responses are generated by foundation models, and then distilled to model;\ (3) Further conducts context distillation to make verbose output; Results show pretty powerful performance compared to other open-source and API models.

Strengths

The proposed approach is easily comprehensible and showcases its effectiveness in producing instruction question-answer pairs to train instruction-following models with limited human supervision. This approach holds significant importance for the open-source community as it demonstrates a strong commitment towards democratizing large language models.

Weaknesses

Paper shows cost-efficient approach to create powerful instruction-tuned models but I have following minor concerns. 1. According to the evaluation results depicted in Figure 5, it becomes evident that incorporating few-shot examples is essential in achieving high-quality answers. This observation leads to the suspicion that the model must need in-context examples to generate high-quality answers since you distill outputs from in-context learning (Appendix Figure 5 also shows that zero-shot performance is worse compared to other “instruction-tuned multi-turn'' models). This observation suggests that there is still a requirement for answers generated by human writers (e.g., LIMA and LLAMA2) or responses derived from instruction-tuned models (e.g., Alpaca and Vicuna), rather than depending on outputs generated by in-context learning, despite the associated costs? 2. In-context learning pipeline described in this paper incorporates a combination of instructional guidance (rules) and few-shot examples (thought process of response). I believe instruction-tuned models may have better capability for this kind of in-context learning compared to relying on foundation models (Wei et al., 2023). [1] LIMA: Less is more for alignment., Zhou et al., 2023\ [2] Larger language models do in-context learning differently., Wei et al., 2023

Questions

(Please refer to Weakness)

Rating

6: Weak Accept: Technically solid, moderate-to-high impact paper, with no major concerns with respect to evaluation, resources, reproducibility, ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

None

Reviewer Yvp32023-08-10

Acknowledging Having Read The Rebuttal

Thanks for the rebuttal. I've read the content and have no further questions.

Program Chairsdecision2023-09-21

Decision

Accept (spotlight)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC