Post-edits Are Preferences Too

Preference Optimization (PO) techniques are currently one of the state of the art techniques for fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on pairwise preference feedback from human annotators. However, in machine translation, this sort of feedback can be difficult to solicit. Additionally, Kreutzer et al. (2018) have shown that, for machine translation, pairwise preferences are less reliable than other forms of human feedback, such as 5-point ratings. We examine post-edits to see if they can be a source of reliable human preferences by construction. In PO, a human annotator is shown sequences $s_1$ and $s_2$ and asked for a preference judgment, %$s_1 > s_2$; while for post-editing, editors \emph{create} $s_1$ and know that it should be better than $s_2$. We attempt to use these implicit preferences for PO and show that it helps the model move towards post-edit-like hypotheses and away from machine translation-like hypotheses. Furthermore, we show that best results are obtained by pre-training the model with supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on post-edits in order to promote post-edit-like hypotheses to the top output ranks.