Fine-Tune, Then Rectify

arXiv:2511.19486v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Driven by recent advances in artificial intelligence, a growing literature has demonstrated the potential of using large language models (LLMs) as scalable surrogates to generate human-like responses. Two common approaches to improve the performance of LLMs include: fine-tuning, which aligns the LLM more closely with human responses, and rectification, which corrects biases in LLM outputs. In this paper, we develop a two-stage framework that combines fine-tuning and rectification, and optimally allocates limited labeled samples across the two stages. A key insight is that the conventional fine-tuning objective of minimizing mean squared prediction error is generally not aligned with the downstream rectification stage. For mean estimation, we propose to minimize the variance of the prediction errors; for general M-estimation, we propose to minimize a scalarized variance metric as the fine-tuning objective. Building on this insight, we leverage the scaling law of fine-tuning to optimally allocate the limited labeled human data between the fine-tuning and rectification stages. Our empirical analysis validates the fine-tuning scaling law and confirms that our proposed optimal allocation rule reliably identifies the optimal sample allocation. We demonstrate substantial efficiency gains in estimation and inference performance relative to fine-tuning or rectification alone, or to employing the conventional mean squared error objective within the fine-tuning then rectification framework. Such efficiency gains translate to significant cost savings for making reliable decisions.

Abstract:Driven by recent advances in artificial intelligence, a growing literature has demonstrated the potential of using large language models (LLMs) as scalable surrogates to generate human-like responses. Two common approaches to improve the performance of LLMs include: fine-tuning, which aligns the LLM more closely with human responses, and rectification, which corrects biases in LLM outputs. In this paper, we develop a two-stage framework that combines fine-tuning and rectification, and optimally allocates limited labeled samples across the two stages. A key insight is that the conventional fine-tuning objective of minimizing mean squared prediction error is generally not aligned with the downstream rectification stage. For mean estimation, we propose to minimize the variance of the prediction errors; for general M-estimation, we propose to minimize a scalarized variance metric as the fine-tuning objective. Building on this insight, we leverage the scaling law of fine-tuning to optimally allocate the limited labeled human data between the fine-tuning and rectification stages. Our empirical analysis validates the fine-tuning scaling law and confirms that our proposed optimal allocation rule reliably identifies the optimal sample allocation. We demonstrate substantial efficiency gains in estimation and inference performance relative to fine-tuning or rectification alone, or to employing the conventional mean squared error objective within the fine-tuning then rectification framework. Such efficiency gains translate to significant cost savings for making reliable decisions.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2511.19486 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2511.19486v3 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.19486 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Fine-Tune, Then Rectify

Related coverage