ActiveUltraFeedback: Efficient Preference Data Generation using Active Learning
Organizations: ETH Zurich · Institute of Neuroinformatics, University of Zurich and ETH Zurich · ETH AI Center
Abstract
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has become the standard for aligning Large Language Models (LLMs), yet its efficacy is bottlenecked by the high cost of acquiring preference data, especially in low-resource and expert domains. To address this, we introduce ACTIVEULTRAFEEDBACK, a modular active learning pipeline that leverages uncertainty estimates to dynamically identify the most informative responses for annotation. Our pipeline facilitates the systematic evaluation of standard response selection methods alongside DOUBLE REVERSE THOMPSON SAMPLING (DRTS) and DELTAUCB, two novel methods prioritizing response pairs with large predicted quality gaps, leveraging recent results showing that such pairs provide good signals for fine-tuning. Our experiments demonstrate that ACTIVEULTRAFEEDBACK yields high-quality datasets that lead to significant improvements in downstream performance, notably achieving comparable or superior results with as little as one-sixth of the annotated data relative to static baselines. Our pipeline is available at https://github.com/lasgroup/ActiveUltraFeedback and our preference datasets at https://huggingface.co/ActiveUltraFeedback.
Figures & tables
| Methods | # Responses to Annotate |
| Baseline Heuristics | |
| Random | 2 |
| MaxMin | |
| UltraFeedback ( Cui et al., 2024 ) | 4 |
| DeltaQwen ( Geng et al., 2025 ) | 0 |
| Dueling Bandit Methods |
| Method | GSM8K | IFEval | TruthfulQA | AlpacaEval 2 | Mean | RewardBench 2 |
| Base Model | + 0.758 | + 0.713 | + 0.468 | + 0.083 | + 0.506 | + 0.290 |
| Original | +0.039 | +0.025 | +0.055 | +0.030 | +0.037 | +0.295 |
| Random | +0.024 | +0.028 | +0.056 | +0.077 | +0.046 | +0.278 |
| UltraFeedback | +0.037 | -0.001 | +0.039 | +0.072 | +0.036 | +0.287 |
| MaxMin | +0.022 | -0.016 | +0.150 | +0.289 | +0.111 | +0.318 |
| DeltaQwen | +0.055 | +0.047 | +0.130 | +0.316 | +0.137 | +0.100 |
Appendix figures & tables30 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Model | # Parameters | License |
| Qwen/Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct | 0.5B | Apache 2.0 |
| Qwen/Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct | 72B | Qwen |
| Qwen/Qwen3-0.6B | 0.6B | Apache 2.0 |
| Qwen/Qwen3-1.7B | 1.7B | Apache 2.0 |
| Qwen/Qwen3-14B | 14B | Apache 2.0 |
| Qwen/Qwen3-30B-A3B | 30B | Apache 2.0 |
| Configuration | Win Rate | Tie Rate | Parse Errors |
| Probabilistic Scoring | 76.70% | 0.0% | 0 |
| Discrete Generation | 75.36% | 14.7% | 275 |
| Probabilistic Scoring + Explicit Reasoning | 73.54% | 11.3% | 120 |
| Discrete Generation + Explicit Reasoning | 73.37% | 12.1% | 20,181 |
| Configuration | Tie Rate | Mean |
| Probabilistic Scoring | 0.833 | 0.744 |
| Discrete Scoring | 0.729 | 0.698 |
| Configuration | Spearman’s | Human Agreement |
| Probabilistic Scoring | 0.67 | 62.7% |
| Discrete Scoring | 0.70 | 60.4% |
| Model | Factuality | Focus | Math | Precise IF | Safety | Ties | Mean |
| Qwen3-32B | 0.787 | 0.840 | 0.710 | 0.343 | 0.844 | 0.863 | 0.731 |
| Qwen3-235B-A22B | 0.851 | 0.792 | 0.689 | 0.369 | 0.931 | 0.833 | 0.744 |
| Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct | 0.692 | 0.753 | 0.683 | 0.437 | 0.806 | 0.866 | 0.706 |
| Skywork-Reward-V2-Llama-3.1-8B | 0.844 | 0.983 | 0.770 | 0.656 | 0.967 | 0.812 | 0.839 |
| Method | GSM8K | IFEval | TruthfulQA | AlpacaEval 2 | Mean | RewardBench 2 |
| DRTS | ||||||
| DeltaUCB |
| Metric | GSM8K | IFEval | TruthfulQA | AlpacaEval 2 | Mean |
| Mean | +0.039 | +0.020 | +0.056 | +0.028 | +0.035 |
| Std. Dev. | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Metric | GSM8K | IFEval | TruthfulQA | AlpacaEval 2 | Mean |
| Mean | +0.044 | +0.020 | +0.054 | +0.030 | +0.035 |
| Std. Dev. | 0.003 | 0.011 | 0.000 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Metric | Factuality | Focus | Math | Precise IF | Safety | Ties | Mean |
| Mean | +0.344 | +0.495 | +0.145 | +0.095 | +0.453 | +0.253 | +0.298 |
| Std. Dev. | 0.019 | 0.029 | 0.030 | 0.031 | 0.036 | 0.072 | 0.011 |
| Metric | Factuality | Focus | Math | Precise IF | Safety | Ties | Mean |
| Mean | +0.363 | +0.444 | +0.145 | +0.128 | +0.546 | +0.252 | +0.292 |
| Std. Dev. | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.006 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Benchmark | GSM8K | IFEval | TruthfulQA | AlpacaEval | Mean |
| Mean Delta | +0.033 | +0.019 | +0.058 | +0.273 | +0.095 |
| Std. Dev. | 0.011 | 0.009 | 0.006 | 0.036 | 0.015 |
| Benchmark | GSM8K | IFEval | TruthfulQA | AlpacaEval | Mean |
| Mean Delta | +0.048 | +0.035 | +0.040 | +0.304 | +0.106 |
| Std. Dev. | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.036 | 0.011 |
| Hyperparameter | Response Generation | Preference Annotation |
| Temperature | 1.0 | 0.0 |
| Top- | 1.0 | – |
| Max Response Tokens | 4096 | 16 |
| Hyperparameter | Value |
| Number of MLP heads | 20 |
| Number of layers per MLP head | 2 |
| Hidden size of each MLP head | 128 |
| Hyperparameter | Value |
| Max Length (Prompt + Response) | 4096 |
| Batch Size, | 64 |
| Train Steps | 100 |
| Initial Regularization, | 1.0 |
| Reward Centering Coefficient, | 0.01 |
| Learning Rate |
| Hyperparameter | Grid Values | InfoMax | DTS | MaxMinLCB | DRTS | DeltaUCB |
| Optimal for DPO Fine-Tuning | ||||||
| Beta | [1, 2] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Regularization Decay | [0.9, 0.99, 0.999] | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.999 | 0.999 |
| Replay Buffer Size Factor, | [100, 1000] | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 |
| Optimal for Reward Modeling | ||||||
| Beta | [1, 2] | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Hyperparameter | Grid Values | Chosen Value |
| For DPO | ||
| Learning Rate | [ , , ] | |
| Lambda | [0.1, 0.01] | 0.1 |
| Epochs | [1, 3] | 3 |
| For IPO | ||
| Learning Rate | [ , , , ] | |
| Hyperparameter | Grid Values | Chosen Value |
| Learning Rate | [ , , ] | |
| Epochs | [1, 2, 3] | 2 |
| Hyperparameters | Chosen Value |
| Rank | 64 |
| Alpha | 16 |
| Dropout | 0.1 |
| Target Modules | all-linear |
| Step | Estimated GPU Hours |
| Response Generation | 600 |
| Annotation | 600 |
| Active Learning Loop | 32 |
| Method | Mean Chosen Score | Mean Rejected Score | Mean Score |
| Random | 4.522 | 3.564 | 4.043 |
| UltraFeedback | 4.747 | 3.810 | 4.279 |
| MaxMin | 4.925 | 1.605 | 3.625 |
| DeltaQwen | 4.549 | 2.924 | 3.736 |
| InfoMax | 3.666 | 3.156 | 3.411 |
| DTS | 4.855 | 4.584 | 4.720 |
| Method | GSM8K | IFEval | TruthfulQA | AlpacaEval 2 | Mean | RewardBench 2 |
| Base Model | + 0.758 | + 0.713 | + 0.468 | + 0.083 | + 0.506 | + 0.290 |
| UltraFeedback Prompts | ||||||
| Original | +0.039 | +0.025 | +0.055 | +0.030 | +0.037 | +0.295 |
| Random | +0.024 | +0.028 | +0.056 | +0.077 | +0.046 | +0.278 |
| UltraFeedback | +0.037 | -0.001 | +0.039 | +0.072 | +0.036 | +0.287 |
| MaxMin | +0.022 | -0.016 | +0.150 | +0.289 | +0.111 | +0.318 |
| Algorithm | Method | GSM8K | IFEval | TruthfulQA | AlpacaEval 2 | Mean |
| – | Base Model | + 0.758 | + 0.713 | + 0.468 | + 0.083 | + 0.506 |
| DPO | Random | +0.024 | +0.028 | +0.056 | +0.077 | +0.046 |
| UltraFeedback | +0.037 | -0.001 | +0.039 | +0.072 | +0.036 | |
| MaxMin | +0.022 | -0.016 | +0.150 | +0.289 | +0.111 | |
| DeltaQwen | +0.055 | +0.047 | +0.130 | +0.316 | +0.137 | |
| InfoMax | +0.011 | +0.019 | +0.018 | +0.020 | +0.016 |
| Model Pool Composition | GSM8K | IFEval | TruthfulQA | AlpacaEval 2 | Mean |
| All 30 models | +0.060 | +0.019 | +0.129 | +0.240 | +0.112 |
| 15 largest models only | +0.011 | -0.001 | -0.003 | +0.059 | +0.017 |
| 15 smallest models only | +0.050 | +0.036 | +0.100 | +0.105 | +0.073 |
| 5 largest + 5 smallest models | +0.070 | +0.025 | +0.114 | +0.152 | +0.090 |
Data Selection
Data selection chooses informative, representative, or reliable examples to improve model training and evaluation while reducing data, compute, or labeling costs.
See all 79 papers