Although multimodal large language models (MLLMs) exhibit remarkable reasoning capabilities on complex multimodal understanding tasks, they still suffer from the notorious "hallucination" issue: generating outputs misaligned with obvious visual or factual evidence. Currently, training-based solutions, like direct preference optimization (DPO), leverage paired preference data to suppress hallucinations. However, they risk sacrificing general reasoning capabilities due to the likelihood displacement. Meanwhile, training-free solutions, like contrastive decoding, achieve this goal by subtracting the estimated hallucination pattern from a distorted input. Yet, these handcrafted perturbations (e.g., add noise to images) may poorly capture authentic hallucination patterns. To avoid these weaknesses of existing methods, and realize "robust" hallucination mitigation (i.e., maintaining general reasoning performance), we propose a novel framework: Decoupling Contrastive Decoding (DCD).

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has emerged as a simple and effective approach for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences, bypassing the need for a learned reward model. Despite its growing adoption, a fundamental question remains open: what characteristics of preference data are most critical for DPO performance? In this work, we provide a systematic study of how preference data distribution influences DPO, from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. We show that the quality of chosen responses plays a dominant role in optimizing the DPO objective, while the quality of rejected responses may have relatively limited impact. Our theoretical analysis characterizes the optimal response distribution under DPO and reveals how contrastiveness between responses helps primarily by improving the chosen samples. We further study an online DPO setting and show it effectively reduces to supervised fine-tuning on the chosen responses. Extensive experiments across diverse tasks confirm our findings: improving the quality of chosen responses consistently boosts performance regardless of the quality of the rejected responses. We also investigate the benefit of mixing the on-policy data. Our results interpret the mechanism behind some widely adopted strategies and offer practical insights for constructing highimpact preference datasets for LLM alignment.

Preference datasets are essential for training general-domain, instruction-following language models with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). Each subsequent data release raises expectations for future data collection, meaning there is a constant need to advance the quality and diversity of openly available preference data. To address this need, we introduce HelpSteer3-Preference, a permissively licensed (CC-BY-4.0),

While text-to-image models like GPT-4o-Image and FLUX are rapidly proliferating, they often encounter challenges such as hallucination, bias, and the production of unsafe, low-quality output. To effectively address these issues, it is crucial to align these models with desired behaviors based on feedback from a multimodal judge. Despite their significance, current multimodal judges frequently undergo inadequate evaluation of their capabilities and limitations, potentially leading to misalignment and unsafe fine-tuning outcomes. To address this issue, we introduce MJ-Bench, a novel benchmark which incorporates a comprehensive preference dataset to evaluate multimodal judges in providing feedback for image generation models across six key perspectives: alignment, safety, image quality, bias, composition, and visualization. Specifically, we evaluate a large variety of multimodal judges including smaller-sized CLIP-based scoring models, open-source VLMs, and close-source VLMs on each decomposed subcategory of our preference dataset. Experiments reveal that close-source VLMs generally provide better feedback, with GPT-4o outperforming other judges in average. Compared with open-source VLMs, smaller-sized scoring models can provide better feedback regarding text-image alignment and image quality, while VLMs provide more accurate feedback regarding safety and generation bias due to their stronger reasoning capabilities. Further studies in feedback scale reveal that VLM judges can generally provide more accurate and stable feedback in natural language than numerical scales. Notably, human evaluations on end-to-end and fine-tuned models using separate feedback from these multimodal judges provide similar conclusions, further confirming the effectiveness of MJ-Bench.

Standard Bradley--Terry (BT) reward models are limited when human preferences are pluralistic. Although soft preference labels preserve disagreement information, BT can only express it by shrinking reward margins. Gaussian reward models provide an alternative by jointly predicting a reward mean and a reward variance, but suffer from a fundamental non-identifiability from pairwise preferences alone. We propose Anchor-guided Variance-aware Reward Modeling, a framework that resolves this non-identifiability by augmenting preference data with two coarse response-level anchor labels. Building on this, we prove that two anchors are sufficient for identification, develop a joint training objective and establish a non-asymptotic convergence rate for both the estimated reward mean and variance functions. Across simulation studies and four real-world diverging-preference datasets, our method consistently improves reward modeling performance and downstream RLHF, including PPO training and best-of-$N$ selection.

We present a novel multimodal preference dataset for creative tasks, consisting of over 250 million human votes on more than 2.2 million captions, collected through crowdsourcing rating data for The New Yorker's weekly cartoon caption contest over the past eight years. This unique dataset supports the development and evaluation of multimodal large language models and preference-based fine-tuning algorithms for humorous caption generation. We propose novel benchmarks for judging the quality of model-generated captions, utilizing both GPT4 and human judgments to establish ranking-based evaluation strategies. Our experimental results highlight the limitations of current fine-tuning methods, such as RLHF and DPO, when applied to creative tasks. Furthermore, we demonstrate that even state-of-the-art models like GPT4 and Claude currently underperform top human contestants in generating humorous captions. As we conclude this extensive data collection effort, we release the entire preference dataset to the research community, fostering further advancements in AI humor generation and evaluation.

Recent studies have demonstrated the exceptional potentials of leveraging human preference datasets to refine text-to-image generative models, enhancing the alignment between generated images and textual prompts. Despite these advances, current human preference datasets are either prohibitively expensive to construct or suffer from a lack of diversity in preference dimensions, resulting in limited applicability for instruction tuning in open-source text-to-image generative models and hinder further exploration. To address these challenges and promote the alignment of generative models through instruction tuning, we leverage multimodal large language models to create VisionPrefer, a high-quality and fine-grained preference dataset that captures multiple preference aspects. We aggregate feedback from AI annotators across four aspects: prompt-following, aesthetic, fidelity, and harmlessness to construct VisionPrefer. To validate the effectiveness of VisionPrefer, we train a reward model VP-Score over VisionPrefer to guide the training of text-to-image generative models and the preference prediction accuracy of VP-Score is comparable to human annotators. Furthermore, we use two reinforcement learning methods to supervised fine-tune generative models to evaluate the performance of VisionPrefer, and extensive experimental results demonstrate that VisionPrefer significantly improves text-image alignment in compositional image generation across diverse aspects, e.g., aesthetic, and generalizes better than previous human-preference metrics across various image distributions. Moreover, VisionPrefer indicates that the integration of AI-generated synthetic data as a supervisory signal is a promising avenue for achieving improved alignment with human preferences in vision generative models.

High-quality preference datasets are essential for training reward models that can effectively guide large language models (LLMs) in generating high-quality responses aligned with human preferences.As LLMs become stronger and better aligned, permissively licensed preference datasets, such as Open Assistant, HH-RLHF, and HelpSteer need to be updated to remain effective for reward modeling.Methods that distil preference data from proprietary LLMs such as GPT-4 have restrictions on commercial usage imposed by model providers.To improve upon both generated responses and attribute labeling quality, we release HelpSteer2, a permissively licensed preference dataset (CC-BY-4.0). Using a powerful Nemotron-4-340B base model trained on HelpSteer2, we are able to achieve the SOTA score (92.0%) on Reward-Bench's primary dataset, outperforming currently listed open and proprietary models, as of June 12th, 2024.Notably, HelpSteer2 consists of only ten thousand response pairs, an order of magnitude fewer than existing preference datasets (e.g., HH-RLHF), which makes it highly efficient for training reward models. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that reward models trained with HelpSteer2 are effective in aligning LLMs. Additionally, we propose SteerLM 2.0, a model alignment approach that can effectively make use of the rich multi-attribute score predicted by our reward models.

However, Is asingle comparison between superior and inferior responses sufficient for preference learning in MLLMs? Upon consideration, we find that a multi-level preference framework offers greater benefits for preference learning, primarily due to two main intuitive advantages.