We explores elevating the quality of existing instruction data to better align with human values, introducing a simple and effective approach named ReAlign (Reformatted Alignment), which reformats the responses of instruction data into a format that better aligns with pre-established criteria and the collated evidence. This approach minimizes human annotation, hallucination, and the difficulty in scaling, remaining orthogonal to existing alignment techniques. Experimentally, ReAlign significantly boosts the general alignment ability, math reasoning, factuality, and readability of the LLMs.
Encouragingly, without introducing any additional data or advanced training techniques, and merely by reformatting the response, LLaMA-2-13B's mathematical reasoning ability on GSM8K can be improved from 46.77% to 56.63% in accuracy. Additionally, a mere 5% of ReAlign data yields a 67% boost in general alignment ability measured by the Alpaca dataset. This work highlights the need for further research into the science and interpretability of LLMs.
The underlying philosophy of ReAlign is to re-coordinate the roles of humans and LLMs in the alignment process, leveraging their complementary strengths -- humans articulate their preferences, and LLMs, in turn, reconstruct instructions based on their generative power (e.g., instruction-following ability), without directly using distilled LLM knowledge. Through this collaborative synergy, we expect the generated instruction data to be not only more contextually precise but also more closely aligned with human preferences.
The ReAlign process unfolds in three main steps.
The first step involves criteria definition, where humans define their preferences (e.g., the preferred format of responses) in various scenarios in the form of natural language. In this paper, we meticulously define criteria for 46 distinct scenarios.
The second step, retrieval augmentation, broadens the knowledge base for knowledge-intensive tasks like open-domain QA and fact verification. This is achieved by incorporating additional information, thereby improving the factuality and informativeness of responses.
The final step, reformatting, aims to re-align the responses with the pre-established criteria and the collated evidence, guaranteeing outputs that are both structured and substantiated.
@article{fan2024reformatted,
title={Reformatted Alignment},
author={Fan, Run-Ze and Li, Xuefeng and Zou, Haoyang and Li, Junlong and He, Shwai and Chern, Ethan and Hu, Jiewen and Liu, Pengfei},
year={2024},
journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12219},
url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12219}
}