mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Hybrid Preferences: Learning to Route Instances for Human vs. AI Feedback

arXiv 2410.19133 ↗First posted 24 Oct 2024cs.CLcited by 25

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

Learning from human feedback has enabled the alignment of language models (LMs) with human preferences. However, collecting human preferences is expensive and time-consuming, with highly variable annotation quality. An appealing alternative is to distill preferences from LMs as a source of synthetic annotations, offering a cost-effective and scalable alternative, albeit susceptible to other biases and errors. In this work, we introduce HyPER, a Hybrid Preference routER that defers an annotation to either humans or LMs, achieving better annotation quality while reducing the cost of human-only annotation. We formulate this as an optimization problem: given a preference dataset and an evaluation metric, we (1) train a performance prediction model (PPM) to predict a reward model's (RM) performance on an arbitrary combination of human and LM annotations and (2) employ a routing strategy that selects a combination that maximizes the predicted performance. We train the PPM on MultiPref, a new preference dataset with 10k instances paired with humans and LM labels. We show that the selected hybrid mixture of synthetic and direct human preferences using HyPER achieves better RM performance compared to using either one exclusively by 7-13% on RewardBench and generalizes across unseen preference datasets and other base models. We also observe the same trend in other benchmarks using Best-of-N reranking, where the hybrid mix has 2-3% better performance. Finally, we analyze features from HyPER and find that prompts with moderate safety concerns or complexity benefit the most from human feedback.

Key facts. Cited by 25 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 41 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Oct 2024.

Builds on

41 of 60 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference7 Mar
  2. 2023The Past, Present and Better Future of Feedback Learning in Large Language Models for Subjective Human Preferences and Values11 Oct
  3. 2023AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedback22 May

Other references · 38

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  3. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
  4. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  5. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
  6. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  7. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
  8. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  9. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  10. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
  11. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  12. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
26 more
  1. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
  2. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
  3. 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,767
  4. 2023Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Modelscited by 1,143
  5. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
  6. 2022Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedbackcited by 871
  7. 2024LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction Tuningcited by 514
  8. 2024RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modelingcited by 480
  9. 2023LMSYS-Chat-1M: A Large-Scale Real-World LLM Conversation Datasetcited by 449
  10. 2023How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resourcescited by 405
  11. 2023Fine-Grained Human Feedback Gives Better Rewards for Language Model Trainingcited by 399
  12. 2023DoReMi: Optimizing Data Mixtures Speeds Up Language Model Pretrainingcited by 385
  13. 2023A Long Way to Go: Investigating Length Correlations in RLHFcited by 285
  14. 2024HelpSteer2: Open-source dataset for training top-performing reward modelscited by 232
  15. 2024A Survey on Data Selection for Language Modelscited by 230
  16. 2023Camels in a Changing Climate: Enhancing LM Adaptation with Tulu 2cited by 227
  17. 2022Datamodels: Predicting Predictions from Training Datacited by 186
  18. 2024RegMix: Data Mixture as Regression for Language Model Pre-trainingcited by 172
  19. 2023HelpSteer: Multi-attribute Helpfulness Dataset for SteerLMcited by 140
  20. 2024HelpSteer2-Preference: Complementing Ratings with Preferencescited by 129
  21. 2024Unpacking DPO and PPO: Disentangling Best Practices for Learning from Preference Feedbackcited by 107
  22. 2024DsDm: Model-Aware Dataset Selection with Datamodelscited by 103
  23. 2023CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large Language Models for Data Annotationcited by 93
  24. 2020Predicting Performance for Natural Language Processing Taskscited by 49
  25. 2022Investigating Reasons for Disagreement in Natural Language Inferencecited by 29
  26. 2021Towards More Fine-grained and Reliable NLP Performance Predictioncited by 26

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 11; 2026: 11.

25 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2024Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Trainingcited by 988
  2. 2025Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the Abovecited by 51
  3. 2025Pairwise Calibrated Rewards for Pluralistic Alignmentcited by 12
  4. 2024HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Modelscited by 8
  5. 2025How Individual Traits and Language Styles Shape Preferences In Open-ended User-LLM Interaction: A Preliminary Studycited by 7
  6. 2025GRAM-R2: Self-Training Generative Foundation Reward Models for Reward Reasoningcited by 7
  7. 2025A Good Plan is Hard to Find: Aligning Models with Preferences is Misaligned with What Helps Userscited by 6
  8. 2024Understanding the Logic of Direct Preference Alignment through Logiccited by 5
  9. 2025Standardizing Intelligence: Aligning Generative AI for Regulatory and Operational Compliancecited by 5
  10. 2025From Noise to Signal to Selbstzweck: Reframing Human Label Variation in the Era of Post-training in NLPcited by 3
  11. 2025Evaluating LLM-Contaminated Crowdsourcing Data Without Ground Truthcited by 2
  12. 2025RE-PO: Robust Enhanced Policy Optimization as a General Framework for LLM Alignmentcited by 2
13 more
  1. 2026An Empirical Study on Preference Tuning Generalization and Diversity Under Domain Shiftcited by 2
  2. 2026The Consensus Trap: Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotationcited by 1
  3. 2025Balancing Quality and Variation: Spam Filtering Distorts Data Label Distributionscited by 0
  4. 2025Feedback Forensics: A Toolkit to Measure AI Personalitycited by 0
  5. 2026Variance-aware Reward Modeling with Anchor Guidancecited by 0
  6. 2026PEBS: Per-rater Empirical-Bayes Shrinkage for RLHF Reward-Model Calibrationcited by 0
  7. 2026Reliability-Aware LLM Alignment from Inconsistent Human Feedbackcited by 0
  8. 2026Codifying the Judge: Scalable Evaluation via Program Distillationcited by 0
  9. 2026Toward a Theory of Value in AI Alignmentcited by 0
  10. 2026Whose Gold? Annotator-Pool Disagreement Is Large at the Item Level, and Hidden by Small Leaderboardscited by 0
  11. 2026QUORUM: QUality-Optimized Routing Using Multiple annotatorscited by 0
  12. 2026ABC-Align: Prediction-Powered Alignment with Adaptive Bias Controlcited by 0
  13. 2026BA-DPO: Bias-Adjusted Direct Preference Optimization for Language Model Alignmentcited by 0

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Data-Centric Human Preference with Rationales for Direct Preference Alignment
  2. 2025HPS: Hard Preference Sampling for Human Preference Alignment
  3. 2024A Survey on Human Preference Learning for Large Language Models
  4. 2023Peering Through Preferences: Unraveling Feedback Acquisition for Aligning Large Language Models
  5. 2026Low-Resource Preference Adaptation of LLMs via Activation-Based Label Propagation
  6. 2025AIR: A Systematic Analysis of Annotations, Instructions, and Response Pairs in Preference Dataset
  7. 2026When Weak LLMs Speak with Confidence, Preference Alignment Gets Stronger
  8. 2024Spread Preference Annotation: Direct Preference Judgment for Efficient LLM Alignment