Hello everyone. Today I'd like to catch up on another paper, a popular one that has pushed a new fine-tuning trend called DPO (Direct Preference Optimization).
Included with the paper are a few open-source projects and code repos that support DPO training. If you are fine-tuning models, this is worth looking into!
DPO Arxiv Paper
Try Fine-tuning w/ DPO using Axolotl
Try Fine-tuning w/ DPO using Llama Factory
Try Fine-tuning w/DPO using Unsloth
Now.. onto the paper!
Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model
While large-scale unsupervised language models (LMs) learn broad world knowledge and some reasoning skills, achieving precise control of their behavior is difficult due to the completely unsupervised nature of their training. Existing methods for gaining such steerability collect human labels of the relative quality of model generations and fine-tune the unsupervised LM to align with these preferences, often with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF).
However, RLHF is a complex and often unstable procedure, first fitting a reward model that reflects the human preferences, and then fine-tuning the large unsupervised LM using reinforcement learning to maximize this estimated reward without drifting too far from the original model.
In this paper we introduce a new parameterization of the reward model in RLHF that enables extraction of the corresponding optimal policy in closed form, allowing us to solve the standard RLHF problem with only a simple classification loss.
The resulting algorithm, which we call Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), is stable, performant, and computationally lightweight, eliminating the need for sampling from the LM during fine-tuning or performing significant hyperparameter tuning. Our experiments show that DPO can fine-tune LMs to align with human preferences as well as or better than existing methods.
Notably, fine-tuning with DPO exceeds PPO-based RLHF in ability to control sentiment of generations, and matches or improves response quality in summarization and single-turn dialogue while being substantially simpler to implement and train.
Figure 1: DPO optimizes for human preferences while avoiding reinforcement learning. Existing methods for fine-tuning language models with human feedback first fit a reward model to a dataset of prompts and human preferences over pairs of responses, and then use RL to find a policy that maximizes the learned reward. In contrast, DPO directly optimizes for the policy best satisfying the preferences with a simple classification objective, fitting an implicit reward model whose corresponding optimal policy can be extracted in closed form
Figure 2: Left. The frontier of expected reward vs KL to the reference policy. DPO provides the highest expected reward for all KL values, demonstrating the quality of the optimization.
Right. TL;DR summarization win rates vs. human-written summaries, using GPT-4 as evaluator. DPO exceeds PPO’s best-case performance on summarization, while being more robust to changes in the sampling temperature.
Learning from preferences is a powerful, scalable framework for training capable, aligned language models. We have introduced DPO, a simple training paradigm for training language models from preferences without reinforcement learning.
Rather than coercing the preference learning problem into a standard RL setting in order to use off-the-shelf RL algorithms, DPO identifies a mapping between language model policies and reward functions that enables training a language model to satisfy human preferences directly, with a simple cross-entropy loss, without reinforcement learning or loss of generality.
With virtually no tuning of hyperparameters, DPO performs similarly or better than existing RLHF algorithms, including those based on PPO; DPO thus meaningfully reduces the barrier to training more language models from human preferences.
Our results raise several important questions for future work. How does the DPO policy generalize out of distribution, compared with learning from an explicit reward function?
Our initial results suggest that DPO policies can generalize similarly to PPO-based models, but more comprehensive study is needed. For example, can training with self-labeling from the DPO policy similarly make effective use of unlabeled prompts? On another front, how does reward over-optimization manifest in the direct preference optimization setting, and is the slight decrease in performance in Figure 3-right an instance of it?
Additionally, while we evaluate models up to 6B parameters, exploration of scaling DPO to state-of-the-art models orders of magnitude larger is an exciting direction for future work. Regarding evaluations, we find that the win rates computed by GPT-4 are impacted by the prompt; future work may study the best way to elicit high-quality judgments from automated systems. Finally, many possible applications of DPO exist beyond training language models from human preferences, including training generative models in other modalities.
I am actively exploring this question.
So far - it’s been the best performing 7B model I’ve been able to get my hands on. Anyone running consumer hardware could get a GGUF version running on almost any dedicated GPU/CPU combo.
I am a firm believer there is more performance and better quality of responses to be found in smaller parameter models. Not too mention interesting use cases you could apply fine-tuning an ensemble approach.
A lot of people sleep on 7B, but I think Mistral is a little different - there’s a lot of exploring to be had finding these use cases but I think they’re out there waiting to be discovered.
I’ll definitely report back on how the first attempt at fine-tuning this myself goes. Until then, I suppose it would be great for any roleplay or basic chat interaction. Given it’s low headroom - it’s much more lightweight to prototype with outside of the other families and model sizes.
If anyone else has a particular use case for 7B models - let us know here. Curious to know what others are doing with smaller params.