Fine-Tune, Then Rectify
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Driven by recent advances in artificial intelligence, a growing literature has demonstrated the potential of using large language models (LLMs) as scalable surrogates to generate human-like responses. Two common approaches to improve the performance of LLMs include: fine-tuning, which aligns the LLM more closely with human responses, and rectification, which corrects biases in LLM outputs. In this paper, we develop a two-stage framework that combines fine-tuning and rectification, and optimally allocates limited labeled samples across the two stages. A key insight is that the conventional fine-tuning objective of minimizing mean squared prediction error is generally not aligned with the downstream rectification stage. For mean estimation, we propose to minimize the variance of the prediction errors; for general M-estimation, we propose to minimize a scalarized variance metric as the fine-tuning objective. Building on this insight, we leverage the scaling law of fine-tuning to optimally allocate the limited labeled human data between the fine-tuning and rectification stages. Our empirical analysis validates the fine-tuning scaling law and confirms that our proposed optimal allocation rule reliably identifies the optimal sample allocation. We demonstrate substantial efficiency gains in estimation and inference performance relative to fine-tuning or rectification alone, or to employing the conventional mean squared error objective within the fine-tuning then rectification framework. Such efficiency gains translate to significant cost savings for making reliable decisions.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 23 Nov 2025.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.
7 papers.
- 2026Calibeating Prediction-Powered Inferencecited by 4
- 2026Generative Augmented Inference of LLM-generated Data for Market Research: Theory and Empirical Evidencecited by 2
- 2026Allocating Human Oversight in AI-Enabled Analyticscited by 1
- 2026When Can You Trust Your Synthetic Users? Diagnostics and Corrections for LLM Consumer Panelscited by 1
- 2026AI-Generated Measurements for Identification and Inference with Missing Data: A Weak Shadow Variable Approachcited by 0
- 2026Rectification Difficulty and Optimal Sample Allocation in LLM-Augmented Surveyscited by 0
- 2026The Scaling Paradox in Human-AI Collaborationcited by 0
- 2026The Scaling Paradox in Human-AI Collaboration1 Aug 2026
- 2026When Can You Trust Your Synthetic Users? Diagnostics and Corrections for LLM Consumer Panels3 Jun 2026
- 2026Calibeating Prediction-Powered Inference23 Apr 2026
- 2026Rectification Difficulty and Optimal Sample Allocation in LLM-Augmented Surveys19 Apr 2026
- 2026Generative Augmented Inference of LLM-generated Data for Market Research: Theory and Empirical Evidence16 Apr 2026
- 2026Allocating Human Oversight in AI-Enabled Analytics14 Apr 2026
- 2026AI-Generated Measurements for Identification and Inference with Missing Data: A Weak Shadow Variable Approach17 Feb 2026