The Superalignment of Superhuman Intelligence with Large Language Models
On the map: Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models → MLLM training and visual instruction tuning
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
We have witnessed superhuman intelligence thanks to the fast development of large language models and multimodal language models. As the application of such superhuman models becomes more and more popular, a critical question arises here: how can we ensure superhuman models are still safe, reliable and aligned well to human values? In this position paper, we discuss the concept of superalignment from the learning perspective to answer this question by outlining the learning paradigm shift from large-scale pretraining, supervised fine-tuning, to alignment training. We define superalignment as designing effective and efficient alignment algorithms to learn from noisy-labeled data (point-wise samples or pair-wise preference data) in a scalable way when the task becomes very complex for human experts to annotate and the model is stronger than human experts. We highlight some key research problems in superalignment, namely, weak-to-strong generalization, scalable oversight, and evaluation. We then present a conceptual framework for superalignment, which consists of three modules: an attacker which generates adversary queries trying to expose the weaknesses of a learner model; a learner which will refine itself by learning from scalable feedbacks generated by a critic model along with minimal human experts; and a critic which generates critics or explanations for a given query-response pair, with a target of improving the learner by criticizing. We discuss some important research problems in each component of this framework and highlight some interesting research ideas that are closely related to our proposed framework, for instance, self-alignment, self-play, self-refinement, and more. Last, we highlight some future research directions for superalignment, including identification of new emergent risks and multi-dimensional alignment.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in MLLM training and visual instruction tuning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models. Builds on 51 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Dec 2024.
Builds on
51 of 56 references.
References · 51
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,548
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,784
- 2022STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoningcited by 940
38 more
- 2023A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferencescited by 912
- 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
- 2024Self-Rewarding Language Modelscited by 681
- 2024Self-Play Fine-Tuning Converts Weak Language Models to Strong Language Modelscited by 557
- 2024Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Predictioncited by 480
- 2023Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervisioncited by 467
- 2018Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research directioncited by 447
- 2018AI safety via debatecited by 400
- 2022Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluatorscited by 380
- 2023JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judgescited by 367
- 2023The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forgetcited by 356
- 2023Statistical Rejection Sampling Improves Preference Optimizationcited by 323
- 2023Principle-Driven Self-Alignment of Language Models from Scratch with Minimal Human Supervisioncited by 318
- 2023Preference Ranking Optimization for Human Alignmentcited by 285
- 2023Self-Consuming Generative Models Go MADcited by 250
- 2023Large Language Model Alignment: A Surveycited by 243
- 2022Measuring Progress on Scalable Oversight for Large Language Modelscited by 225
- 2023Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-Examinercited by 172
- 2023Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignmentcited by 169
- 2023LM vs LM: Detecting Factual Errors via Cross Examinationcited by 156
- 2024LLM Critics Help Catch LLM Bugscited by 147
- 2018Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak expertscited by 145
- 2024Language Models Learn to Mislead Humans via RLHFcited by 124
- 2024Trust or Escalate: LLM Judges with Provable Guarantees for Human Agreementcited by 105
- 2023A Comprehensive Study on Robustness of Image Classification Models: Benchmarking and Rethinkingcited by 85
- 2024Panacea: Pareto Alignment via Preference Adaptation for LLMscited by 80
- 2023Large Language Models Suffer From Their Own Output: An Analysis of the Self-Consuming Training Loopcited by 79
- 2023CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generationcited by 66
- 2023Unveiling the Implicit Toxicity in Large Language Modelscited by 51
- 2024Improving Reward Models with Synthetic Critiquescited by 44
- 2024Towards Efficient Exact Optimization of Language Model Alignmentcited by 37
- 2024Adversarial Attacks and Defenses on Text-to-Image Diffusion Models: A Surveycited by 35
- 2024Learning to Refine with Fine-Grained Natural Language Feedbackcited by 27
- 2024Progress or Regress? Self-Improvement Reversal in Post-trainingcited by 23
- 2024Bayesian Calibration of Win Rate Estimation with LLM Evaluatorscited by 16
- 2024Improving Model Factuality with Fine-grained Critique-based Evaluatorcited by 15
- 2024Learning Task Decomposition to Assist Humans in Competitive Programmingcited by 14
- 2023Reinforcement Learning for Generative AI: A Surveycited by 11
50 most cited of 51 All 51 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Super(ficial)-alignment: Strong Models May Deceive Weak Models in Weak-to-Strong Generalization
- 2024A Moral Imperative: The Need for Continual Superalignment of Large Language Models
- 2025Superalignment with Dynamic Human Values
- 2024Improving Weak-to-Strong Generalization with Scalable Oversight and Ensemble Learning
- 2024Weak-to-Strong Generalization beyond Accuracy: a Pilot Study in Safety, Toxicity, and Legal Reasoning
- 2024The Road to Artificial SuperIntelligence: A Comprehensive Survey of Superalignment
- 2025Selective Weak-to-Strong Generalization
- 2025Alignment and Safety in Large Language Models: Safety Mechanisms, Training Paradigms, and Emerging Challenges