mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Intuitive Fine-Tuning: Towards Simplifying Alignment into a Single Process

arXiv 2405.11870 ↗First posted 20 May 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 8

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

  1. 2024Negative Preference Optimization: From Catastrophic Collapse to Effective Unlearning8 Apr
  2. 2024Extensive Self-Contrast Enables Feedback-Free Language Model Alignment31 Mar
  3. 2024Comparing Bad Apples to Good Oranges: Aligning Large Language Models via Joint Preference Optimization31 Mar
  4. 2024Human Alignment of Large Language Models through Online Preference Optimisation13 Mar
  5. 2024Controllable Preference Optimization: Toward Controllable Multi-Objective Alignment29 Feb
  6. 2024RS-DPO: A Hybrid Rejection Sampling and Direct Preference Optimization Method for Alignment of Large Language Models15 Feb
  7. 2024Relative Preference Optimization: Enhancing LLM Alignment through Contrasting Responses across Identical and Diverse Prompts12 Feb
  8. 2024Direct Language Model Alignment from Online AI Feedback7 Feb
  9. 2023What Makes Good Data for Alignment? A Comprehensive Study of Automatic Data Selection in Instruction Tuning25 Dec
  10. 2023Statistical Rejection Sampling Improves Preference Optimization13 Sep
  11. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback4 Mar

Other references · 27

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  3. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
  4. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  5. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  6. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
  7. 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 4,033
  8. 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,164
  9. 2022Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Modelscited by 3,024
  10. 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
  11. 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,150
  12. 2023Enhancing Chat Language Models by Scaling High-quality Instructional Conversationscited by 839
15 more
  1. 2023AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedbackcited by 748
  2. 2023RAFT: Reward rAnked FineTuning for Generative Foundation Model Alignmentcited by 686
  3. 2024Self-Rewarding Language Modelscited by 681
  4. 2024Self-Play Fine-Tuning Converts Weak Language Models to Strong Language Modelscited by 557
  5. 2019Neural Text Generation with Unlikelihood Trainingcited by 503
  6. 2023Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectorscited by 486
  7. 2023RRHF: Rank Responses to Align Language Models with Human Feedback without tearscited by 463
  8. 2023SLiC-HF: Sequence Likelihood Calibration with Human Feedbackcited by 401
  9. 2023Iterative Preference Learning from Human Feedback: Bridging Theory and Practice for RLHF under KL-Constraintcited by 350
  10. 2016Learning Hand-Eye Coordination for Robotic Grasping with Deep Learning and Large-Scale Data Collectioncited by 316
  11. 2021Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practicescited by 207
  12. 2024Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Datacited by 185
  13. 2024Orca-Math: Unlocking the potential of SLMs in Grade School Mathcited by 151
  14. 2024Predictions from language models for multiple-choice tasks are not robust under variation of scoring methodscited by 13
  15. 2019Direct and indirect reinforcement learningcited by 11

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 4; 2026: 1.

8 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Preference-Oriented Supervised Fine-Tuning: Favoring Target Model Over Aligned Large Language Models
  2. 2024A Deep Dive into the Trade-Offs of Parameter-Efficient Preference Alignment Techniques
  3. 2024ORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model
  4. 2025Balancing the Budget: Understanding Trade-offs Between Supervised and Preference-Based Finetuning
  5. 2024Towards a Unified View of Preference Learning for Large Language Models: A Survey
  6. 2025Self-Rewarding PPO: Aligning Large Language Models with Demonstrations Only
  7. 2026An Empirical Study on Preference Tuning Generalization and Diversity Under Domain Shift
  8. 2025Massive Supervised Fine-tuning Experiments Reveal How Data, Layer, and Training Factors Shape LLM Alignment Quality