mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Self-Judge: Selective Instruction Following with Alignment Self-Evaluation

arXiv 2409.00935 ↗First posted 2 Sep 2024cs.CLcited by 7

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → LLM preference optimization methods

Abstract (arXiv)

Pre-trained large language models (LLMs) can be tailored to adhere to human instructions through instruction tuning. However, due to shifts in the distribution of test-time data, they may not always execute instructions accurately, potentially generating factual errors or misaligned content when acting as chat assistants. To enhance the reliability of LLMs in following instructions, we propose the study of selective instruction following, whereby the system declines to execute instructions if the anticipated response quality is low. We train judge models that can predict numerical quality scores for model responses. To address data scarcity, we introduce Self-J, a novel self-training framework for developing judge models without needing human-annotated quality scores. Our method leverages the model's inherent self-evaluation capability to extract information about response quality from labeled instruction-tuning data. It incorporates a gold reference answer to facilitate self-evaluation and recalibrates by assessing the semantic similarity between the response sample and the gold reference. During the training phase, we implement self-distillation as a regularization technique to enhance the capability of reference-free estimation. To validate alignment evaluation on general instruction-following tasks, we collect large-scale high-quality instructions from Hugging Face for model training and evaluation. Extensive experiments on five open-source models show that our method correlates much more with GPT-4 than strong baselines, e.g., supervised models distilled from GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-turbo. Our analysis shows our model's strong generalization across domains. Additionally, our judge models serve as good reward models, e.g., boosting WizardLM-13B-V1.2 from 89.17 to 92.48 and from 12.03 to 15.90 in version v1 and v2 of AlpacaEval respectively using best-of-32 sampling with our judge models.

Key facts. Cited by 7 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 16 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2024.

Builds on

16 of 36 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignment18 May
  2. 2023Principle-Driven Self-Alignment of Language Models from Scratch with Minimal Human Supervision4 May
  3. 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions20 Dec
  4. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback4 Mar

Other references · 12

  1. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  2. 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,418
  3. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  4. 2023WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructionscited by 1,125
  5. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
  6. 2023Enhancing Chat Language Models by Scaling High-quality Instructional Conversationscited by 839
  7. 2023AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedbackcited by 748
  8. 2023The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction Tuningcited by 739
  9. 2023PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimizationcited by 316
  10. 2020Selective Question Answering under Domain Shiftcited by 238
  11. 2022Out-of-Distribution Detection and Selective Generation for Conditional Language Modelscited by 197
  12. 2023Shepherd: A Critic for Language Model Generationcited by 97

Built on by

Cited by year

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

7 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Self-Evaluation Is Already There: Eliciting Latent Judge Calibration in Base LLMs with Minimal Data
  2. 2024Self-play with Execution Feedback: Improving Instruction-following Capabilities of Large Language Models
  3. 2024Meta-Rewarding Language Models: Self-Improving Alignment with LLM-as-a-Meta-Judge
  4. 2025Aligning Instruction Tuning with Pre-training
  5. 2026IF-RewardBench: Benchmarking Judge Models for Instruction-Following Evaluation
  6. 2025Training an LLM-as-a-Judge Model: Pipeline, Insights, and Practical Lessons
  7. 2024Improving the Robustness of Large Language Models via Consistency Alignment
  8. 2025Towards Alignment-Centric Paradigm: A Survey of Instruction Tuning in Large Language Models