Less Data, Better Alignment: Data-Centric Multi-Evaluator Agreement for Preference Optimization
TL;DR
This method generates candidate responses from the target policy, evaluates helpfulness, factuality, and conciseness with rubric-specialized evaluators, applies a process-critic correction, and retains only high-consensus desirable or undesirable examples.
Abstract
Research on preference optimization often varies the training objective while holding the data fixed. We instead ask whether a small, high-confidence set of on-policy responses can provide a reliable learning signal. Our method, DMAPO (Data-centric Multi-evaluator Agreement for Preference Optimization), generates candidate responses from the target policy, evaluates helpfulness, factuality, and conciseness with rubric-specialized evaluators, applies a process-critic correction, and retains only high-consensus desirable or undesirable examples. This procedure accepts 1,871 of 54,236 Mistral-7B candidates (3.45%). KTO trained on this set reaches 7.50 on MT-Bench, 95.5% length-controlled win rate against a text-davinci-003 reference, and 57.3% IFEval prompt accuracy. Independent pairwise evaluation also favors DMAPO over SimPO: GPT-4o yields a net win rate of 23.3 points on 129 held-out prompts and 24.0 points on 200 out-of-distribution LMSYS-Chat prompts; Claude Opus 4.7 yields 24.1 points on the held-out set. Changing the evaluator model or rubric alters the selected examples but has little effect on downstream performance. A second-backbone study yields a similar 3.41% acceptance rate, although its performance gains are more modest. Across these experiments, consensus filtering offers a data-efficient route to preference optimization for general instructions, at the cost of additional curation compute and dependence on evaluator judgments.