Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) has demonstrated significant potential across various domains, including mitigating harm in LLM outputs, enhancing text summarization, and mathematical reasoning. This paper introduces an RLAIF framework for improving the code generation abilities of lightweight (<1B parameters) LLMs. We specifically focus on code generation tasks that require writing appropriate API calls, which is challenging due to the well-known issue of hallucination in LLMs. Our framework extracts AI feedback from a larger LLM (e.g., GPT-3.5) through a specialized prompting strategy and uses this data to train a reward model towards better alignment from smaller LLMs. We run our experiments on the Gorilla dataset and meticulously assess the quality of the model-generated code across various metrics, including AST, ROUGE, and Code-BLEU, and develop a pipeline to compute its executability rate accurately. Our approach significantly enhances the fine-tuned LLM baseline’s performance, achieving a 4.5% improvement in executability rate. Notably, a smaller LLM model (780M parameters) trained with RLAIF surpasses a much larger fine-tuned baseline with 7B parameters, achieving a 1.0% higher code executability rate.

Human feedback is essential for building human-centered AI systems across domains where disagreement is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Many disagreements, particularly in politically charged settings, arise because raters have opposing values or beliefs. Vicarious annotation is a method for breaking down disagreement by asking raters how they think others would annotate the data. In this paper, we explore the use of vicarious annotation with analytical methods for moderating rater disagreement. We employ rater cohesion metrics to study the potential influence of political affiliations and demographic backgrounds on raters’ perceptions of offense. Additionally, we utilize CrowdTruth’s rater quality metrics, which consider the demographics of the raters, to score the raters and their annotations. We study how the rater quality metrics influence the in-group and cross-group rater cohesion across the personal and vicarious levels.

Offensive speech detection is a key component of content moderation. However, what is offensive can be highly subjective. This paper investigates how machine and human moderators disagree on what is offensive when it comes to real-world social web political discourse. We show that (1) there is extensive disagreement among the moderators (humans and machines); and (2) human and large-language-model classifiers are unable to predict how other human raters will respond, based on their political leanings. For (1), we conduct a ***noise audit*** at an unprecedented scale that combines both machine and human responses. For (2), we introduce a first-of-its-kind dataset of ***vicarious offense***. Our noise audit reveals that moderation outcomes vary wildly across different machine moderators. Our experiments with human moderators suggest that political leanings combined with sensitive issues affect both first-person and vicarious offense. The dataset is available through https://github.com/Homan-Lab/voiced.