ORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model (Paper Explained)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 кві 2024
- Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2403.07691
Abstract:
While recent preference alignment algorithms for language models have demonstrated promising results, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) remains imperative for achieving successful convergence. In this paper, we study the crucial role of SFT within the context of preference alignment, emphasizing that a minor penalty for the disfavored generation style is sufficient for preference-aligned SFT. Building on this foundation, we introduce a straightforward and innovative reference model-free monolithic odds ratio preference optimization algorithm, ORPO, eliminating the necessity for an additional preference alignment phase. We demonstrate, both empirically and theoretically, that the odds ratio is a sensible choice for contrasting favored and disfavored styles during SFT across the diverse sizes from 125M to 7B. Specifically, fine-tuning Phi-2 (2.7B), Llama-2 (7B), and Mistral (7B) with ORPO on the UltraFeedback alone surpasses the performance of state-of-the-art language models with more than 7B and 13B parameters: achieving up to 12.20% on AlpacaEval2.0 (Figure 1), 66.19% on IFEval (instruction-level loose, Table 6), and 7.32 in MT-Bench (Figure 12). We release code and model checkpoints for Mistral-ORPO-α (7B) and Mistral-ORPO-β (7B).
Authors: Jiwoo Hong, Noah Lee, James Thorne
Links:
Homepage: ykilcher.com
Merch: ykilcher.com/merch
UA-cam: / yannickilcher
Twitter: / ykilcher
Discord: ykilcher.com/discord
LinkedIn: / ykilcher
If you want to support me, the best thing to do is to share out the content :)
If you want to support me financially (completely optional and voluntary, but a lot of people have asked for this):
SubscribeStar: www.subscribestar.com/yannick...
Patreon: / yannickilcher
Bitcoin (BTC): bc1q49lsw3q325tr58ygf8sudx2dqfguclvngvy2cq
Ethereum (ETH): 0x7ad3513E3B8f66799f507Aa7874b1B0eBC7F85e2
Litecoin (LTC): LQW2TRyKYetVC8WjFkhpPhtpbDM4Vw7r9m
Monero (XMR): 4ACL8AGrEo5hAir8A9CeVrW8pEauWvnp1WnSDZxW7tziCDLhZAGsgzhRQABDnFy8yuM9fWJDviJPHKRjV4FWt19CJZN9D4n - Наука та технологія
![[ML News] OpenAI is in hot waters (GPT-4o, Ilya Leaving, Scarlett Johansson legal action)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5bPBbQyLI7E/mqdefault.jpg)
Glad you're back to technical content this time. Any AI UA-camr can give us latest AI news, but you're just about the only one that can give technical insight into the stories.
6 videos in 7 days, I'm having a holiday and this is such a perfect-timing treat.
Thank you for being awesome Yannic, I send people from the classes that I "TA" for to you because you're reliably strong with your analysis.
The main loss function (7) looks like it can be meaningfully simplified with school-level math.
Lor = -log(sigm( log ( odds(y_w|x) / odds(y_l|x)))), where sigm(a) = 1/(1 + exp(-a)) = exp(a) / (1 + exp(a))
Let's assume that both odds(y_w|x) and odds(y_l|x) are positive (because softmax)
By plugging in the sigmoid, we get
Lor = - log (exp(log(odds(y_w|x) / odds(y_l|x) )) / (1 + exp(log(odds(y_w|x) / odds(y_l|x)))) )
Note that exp(log(odds(y_w|x) / odds(y_l|x)) = odds(y_w|x) / odds(y_l|x). We use this to simplify:
Lor = - log( [odds(y_w|x) / odds(y_l|x)] / (1 + odds(y_w|x) / odds(y_l|x)) )
Finally, multiply both numerator and denominator by odds(y_l|x) to get
Lor = - log(odds(y_w|x) / (odds(y_w|x) + odds(y_l|x)) )
Intuitively, this is the negative log-probability of (the odds of good response) / (odds of good response + odds of bad response ).
If you minimize the average loss over multiple texts, it's the same as maximizing the odds that the model chooses winning response in every pair (of winning+losing responses).
Good job! I suppose you mean `odds(y_l|x)` instead of `odds(y_l)` in the final equation.
@@peterszilvasi752 thanks! good catch :) /* fixed the previous comment */
very cool! thank you for this
26:30 that 'really?' and the following struggle with basic math is WAAAAY to relatable
I very like more technical content from you. I usually read tech news in telegram and your NL New are greats, but very ordinal and simple. So such paper explanations are kind of impact to the DS community, such videos grands new ideas and increase understanding of the field for those, who tried to dive in the deep. Of course it less popular due to complexity of material for audience, but much more interesting. So thank you for such format.
Great to see research from my homeland of South Korea represented!
Woo allegence to tribes!!... .. ..
do you know Seoul?
There is only one korea
Nice I was waiting for this after you mentioned ORPO in ML News :))
Thanks for explaining basic terms along with the more complex stuff, for dilettantes like myself. Cheers.
Thx again yan! 🎉
You are on fire!
That log of probability is also a power transform often used to narrow or widen a distribution.
You should make a video just focusing on log and explaining it's role in neuronal networks.
Thank you Mr Klicher for delving into the paper, ORPO; Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model
Keep them comin
Nice!
"Specifically, 1 - p(y|x) in the denominators amplifies the gradients when the corresponding side of the likelihood p(y|x) is low". I think that (1 - p(y|x)) have two different meanings here: it can be the result of differentiation by coincidence and also the "corresponding side" of the likelihood, i.e., 1 - p(y|x). So, when it says the "corresponding side" of p(y|x) is low, it means that 1 - p(y|x) is low.
I liked the self deprecation at 32:00 haha
What's going on, is it a yannic bonanza time of the year! Loving these addicting videos
Wow good timing to go on youtube
great! now apply ORPO to a reward model and round we go!
27:57
“the corresponding side”
Maybe they mistakenly switched the w l givens in the denominators?
Would be interesting to see how it compares to KTO. Would guess that KTO outperforms and is easier to implament as you dont need pairs of inputs.
There seems to be a conceptual problem, where are the preferences coming from given that they are expressed on multiple responses to the same prompt? Let's suppose we wish to fine-tune a foundation model for chat, we would not have the preferences before having done SFT and gathered some responses on the chat template format based prompt, that would force us to do SFT first and then SFT+ODDS_RATIO loss. Doable but surely not a single pass approach.
Where does Yw and Yl come from. Is it from the training dataset or the LLM that is being trained generates these and are labelled by humans or reward models as W and L?
0:52 : I wish we had a different term for this other than “alignment”
"Preference tuning" is used to describe it pretty often
@@TheRyulord thanks!
makes me think of PPO
The comparison in the end between OR and PR should also discuss the influence of the log sigmoid, or? And, more importantly, how the gradients for the winning and loosing output actually would look like with these simulated pars... It feels a bit handweavy why the logsigmoid of the OR should be the target ...
I don't even know what the title of this video means 😵💫. But I'm going to watch anyway.
Can you do one on Kolmogorov-Arnold Network from MIT
yannick can you do xlstm paper
I feel like AI models have gotten more stale and same-y ever since RLHF became the norm. Playing around with GPT-3 was wild times. Hopefully alignment moves in a direction with more diverse ranges of responses in the future, and less censorship in domains where it's not needed.
LLMs are what Machine Learning has always been: input output. Quality data makes the cake…. no matter how many fancy mixers you bring to the table.
why hat, indeed
*posts videos almost every day*
*KAN paper dropped, disappears for 2 weeks*
I hope you alright man 🫂🤗