Cheolhun Jang

Seonil Son, Ju-Min Oh, Heegon Jin et al.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) expand across domains, LLM judges have become essential for systems evaluation. Current benchmarks typically compare system outputs against baselines. This baseline-mediated approach, though convenient, yields lower reliability than direct comparison between systems. We propose Arena-Lite which integrates tournament structure on top of head-to-head comparison. The application of a tournament structure and direct comparison eliminates the need for baseline outputs, reduces the number of required comparisons, and allows higher reliability in system rankings. We conducted two experiments: (1) controlled stochastic modeling and (2) empirical validation with a real LLM judge. Those experiments collectively demonstrate that Arena-Lite consistently achieves higher reliability with fewer comparisons, even with smaller datasets or weaker judges. We release an easy-to-use web demonstration and code to foster adoption of Arena-Lite, streamlining model selection across research and industry communities. Arena-Lite demo and code are available on \href{https://huggingface.co/spaces/NCSOFT/ArenaLite}{https://huggingface.co/spaces/NCSOFT/ArenaLite}

Cheolhun Jang

Preference optimization methods typically begin training with a well-trained SFT model as a reference model. In RLHF and DPO, a regularization term is used during the preference optimization process to prevent the policy model from deviating too far from the reference model's distribution, thereby avoiding the generation of anomalous responses. When the reference model is already well-aligned with the given data or only requires slight adjustments, this approach can produce a well-aligned model. However, if the reference model is not aligned with the given data and requires significant deviation from its current state, a regularization term may actually hinder the model alignment. In this study, we propose \textbf{Modulated Intervention Preference Optimization (MIPO)} to address this issue. MIPO modulates the degree of intervention from the reference model based on how well the given data is aligned with it. If the data is well-aligned, the intervention is increased to prevent the policy model from diverging significantly from reference model. Conversely, if the alignment is poor, the interference is reduced to facilitate more extensive training. We compare the performance of MIPO and DPO using Mistral-7B and Llama3-8B in Alpaca Eval 2.0 and MT-Bench. The experimental results demonstrate that MIPO consistently outperforms DPO across various evaluation scenarios.