Intuitive Fine-Tuning: Towards Simplifying Alignment into a Single Process
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → LLM preference optimization methods
Abstract (arXiv)
Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Preference Optimization (PO) are key processes for aligning Language Models (LMs) with human preferences post pre-training. While SFT excels in efficiency and PO in effectiveness, they are often combined sequentially without integrating their optimization objectives. This approach ignores the opportunities to bridge their paradigm gap and take the strengths from both. In this paper, we interpret SFT and PO with two sub-processes -- Preference Estimation and Transition Optimization -- defined at token level within the Markov Decision Process (MDP). This modeling shows that SFT is only a special case of PO with inferior estimation and optimization. PO estimates the model's preference by its entire generation, while SFT only scores model's subsequent predicted tokens based on prior tokens from ground truth answer. These priors deviates from model's distribution, hindering the preference estimation and transition optimization. Building on this view, we introduce Intuitive Fine-Tuning (IFT) to integrate SFT and PO into a single process. Through a temporal residual connection, IFT brings better estimation and optimization by capturing LMs' intuitive sense of its entire answers. But it solely relies on a single policy and the same volume of non-preference-labeled data as SFT. Our experiments show that IFT performs comparably or even superiorly to SFT and some typical PO methods across several tasks, particularly those require generation, reasoning, and fact-following abilities. An explainable Frozen Lake game further validates the effectiveness of IFT for getting competitive policy.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 38 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2024.
Builds on
38 of 59 references.
Closest ancestors · 11
Same direction, newest first
- 2024Negative Preference Optimization: From Catastrophic Collapse to Effective Unlearning8 Apr
- 2024Extensive Self-Contrast Enables Feedback-Free Language Model Alignment31 Mar
- 2024Comparing Bad Apples to Good Oranges: Aligning Large Language Models via Joint Preference Optimization31 Mar
- 2024Human Alignment of Large Language Models through Online Preference Optimisation13 Mar
- 2024Controllable Preference Optimization: Toward Controllable Multi-Objective Alignment29 Feb
- 2024RS-DPO: A Hybrid Rejection Sampling and Direct Preference Optimization Method for Alignment of Large Language Models15 Feb
- 2024Relative Preference Optimization: Enhancing LLM Alignment through Contrasting Responses across Identical and Diverse Prompts12 Feb
- 2024Direct Language Model Alignment from Online AI Feedback7 Feb
- 2023What Makes Good Data for Alignment? A Comprehensive Study of Automatic Data Selection in Instruction Tuning25 Dec
- 2023Statistical Rejection Sampling Improves Preference Optimization13 Sep
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback4 Mar
Other references · 27
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 4,033
- 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,164
- 2022Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Modelscited by 3,024
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
- 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,150
- 2023Enhancing Chat Language Models by Scaling High-quality Instructional Conversationscited by 839
15 more
- 2023AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedbackcited by 748
- 2023RAFT: Reward rAnked FineTuning for Generative Foundation Model Alignmentcited by 686
- 2024Self-Rewarding Language Modelscited by 681
- 2024Self-Play Fine-Tuning Converts Weak Language Models to Strong Language Modelscited by 557
- 2019Neural Text Generation with Unlikelihood Trainingcited by 503
- 2023Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectorscited by 486
- 2023RRHF: Rank Responses to Align Language Models with Human Feedback without tearscited by 463
- 2023SLiC-HF: Sequence Likelihood Calibration with Human Feedbackcited by 401
- 2023Iterative Preference Learning from Human Feedback: Bridging Theory and Practice for RLHF under KL-Constraintcited by 350
- 2016Learning Hand-Eye Coordination for Robotic Grasping with Deep Learning and Large-Scale Data Collectioncited by 316
- 2021Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practicescited by 207
- 2024Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Datacited by 185
- 2024Orca-Math: Unlocking the potential of SLMs in Grade School Mathcited by 151
- 2024Predictions from language models for multiple-choice tasks are not robust under variation of scoring methodscited by 13
- 2019Direct and indirect reinforcement learningcited by 11
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 4; 2026: 1.
8 papers.
- 2025A Survey of Reinforcement Learning for Large Reasoning Modelscited by 180
- 2024UltraMedical: Building Specialized Generalists in Biomedicinecited by 67
- 2025NFT: Bridging Supervised Learning and Reinforcement Learning in Math Reasoningcited by 38
- 2024A Survey on Human Preference Learning for Large Language Modelscited by 24
- 2025Align-Pro: A Principled Approach to Prompt Optimization for LLM Alignmentcited by 18
- 2024Right Now, Wrong Then: Non-Stationary Direct Preference Optimization under Preference Driftcited by 13
- 2026Supervised Fine-Tuning versus Reinforcement Learning: A Study of Post-Training Methods for Large Language Modelscited by 3
- 2025Probing the Limits of Stylistic Alignment in Vision-Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026Supervised Fine-Tuning versus Reinforcement Learning: A Study of Post-Training Methods for Large Language Models14 Mar 2026
- 2025Probing the Limits of Stylistic Alignment in Vision-Language Models29 Sep 2025
- 2025A Survey of Reinforcement Learning for Large Reasoning Models10 Sep 2025
- 2025NFT: Bridging Supervised Learning and Reinforcement Learning in Math Reasoning23 May 2025
- 2025Align-Pro: A Principled Approach to Prompt Optimization for LLM Alignment7 Jan 2025
- 2024Right Now, Wrong Then: Non-Stationary Direct Preference Optimization under Preference Drift26 Jul 2024
- 2024A Survey on Human Preference Learning for Large Language Models17 Jun 2024
- 2024UltraMedical: Building Specialized Generalists in Biomedicine6 Jun 2024
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Preference-Oriented Supervised Fine-Tuning: Favoring Target Model Over Aligned Large Language Models
- 2024A Deep Dive into the Trade-Offs of Parameter-Efficient Preference Alignment Techniques
- 2024ORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model
- 2025Balancing the Budget: Understanding Trade-offs Between Supervised and Preference-Based Finetuning
- 2024Towards a Unified View of Preference Learning for Large Language Models: A Survey
- 2025Self-Rewarding PPO: Aligning Large Language Models with Demonstrations Only
- 2026An Empirical Study on Preference Tuning Generalization and Diversity Under Domain Shift
- 2025Massive Supervised Fine-tuning Experiments Reveal How Data, Layer, and Training Factors Shape LLM Alignment Quality