arXiv:2503.14391cs.CL2025-03被引 7

负例能显著提升大模型准确率,减少幻觉。

How much do LLMs learn from negative examples?

  • 用负例训练时,每样本提升幅度远超仅用正例。
  • 看似正确但实际错误的负例影响更大。
  • 适合想降低模型幻觉的开发者使用。

大型语言模型(LLMs)经历三个阶段训练:无监督预训练、有监督微调(SFT)和基于人类反馈的学习(RLHF/DPO)。其中,最后阶段会引入负例——即错误、被拒绝或次优的回答。本文通过在多选题问答基准上使用似然比(Likra)模型,精确控制负例的数量与影响。研究发现:(1) 在训练关键阶段,使用负例的Likra每样本提升幅度显著高于仅用正例的SFT,学习曲线出现陡升而非平缓增长;(2) 意图合理但错误的负例(近似误答)影响更显著;(3) 仅用正例训练无法有效降低合理但错误回答的概率,而加入负例可更准确识别此类情况。结果表明,负例在提升准确性和减少幻觉方面具有潜在重要作用。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Large language models (LLMs) undergo a three-phase training process: unsupervised pre-training, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and learning from human feedback (RLHF/DPO). Notably, it is during the final phase that these models are exposed to negative examples -- incorrect, rejected, or suboptimal responses to queries. This paper delves into the role of negative examples in the training of LLMs, using a likelihood-ratio (Likra) model on multiple-choice question answering benchmarks to precisely manage the influence and the volume of negative examples. Our findings reveal three key insights: (1) During a critical phase in training, Likra with negative examples demonstrates a significantly larger improvement per training example compared to SFT using only positive examples. This leads to a sharp jump in the learning curve for Likra unlike the smooth and gradual improvement of SFT; (2) negative examples that are plausible but incorrect (near-misses) exert a greater influence; and (3) while training with positive examples fails to significantly decrease the likelihood of plausible but incorrect answers, training with negative examples more accurately identifies them. These results indicate a potentially significant role for negative examples in improving accuracy and reducing hallucinations for LLMs.

大模型负例幻觉

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。