More RLHF, More Trust? On The Impact of Human Preference Alignment On Language Model Trustworthiness
2404.18870
0
0
Abstract
The surge in Large Language Models (LLMs) development has led to improved performance on cognitive tasks as well as an urgent need to align these models with human values in order to safely exploit their power. Despite the effectiveness of preference learning algorithms like Reinforcement Learning From Human Feedback (RLHF) in aligning human preferences, their assumed improvements on model trustworthiness haven't been thoroughly testified. Toward this end, this study investigates how models that have been aligned with general-purpose preference data on helpfulness and harmlessness perform across five trustworthiness verticals: toxicity, stereotypical bias, machine ethics, truthfulness, and privacy. For model alignment, we focus on three widely used RLHF variants: Supervised Finetuning (SFT), Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO), and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Through extensive empirical investigations, we discover that the improvement in trustworthiness by RLHF is far from guaranteed, and there exists a complex interplay between preference data, alignment algorithms, and specific trustworthiness aspects. Together, our results underscore the need for more nuanced approaches for model alignment. By shedding light on the intricate dynamics of these components within model alignment, we hope this research will guide the community towards developing language models that are both capable and trustworthy.
Get summaries of the top AI research delivered straight to your inbox:
Overview
- This paper explores the impact of human preference alignment on the trustworthiness of language models, specifically through the lens of Reward-Learned Human Feedback (RLHF).
- The authors investigate whether increasing the alignment between language models and human preferences, as achieved through more RLHF, leads to greater trust in the models.
- The paper presents a series of experiments and analyses to understand the relationship between preference alignment and model trustworthiness.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at how making language models better align with what humans prefer, through a technique called Reward-Learned Human Feedback (RLHF), affects how trustworthy the models are perceived to be. RLHF is a method for training AI systems to behave in ways that humans find desirable, by having the system learn from feedback provided by humans. The key question the researchers are exploring is whether more RLHF, and thus closer alignment with human preferences, actually leads to people trusting the models more.
To investigate this, the researchers ran a series of experiments where they trained language models using different amounts of RLHF and then had people evaluate the trustworthiness of the models. They wanted to see if the models that were more aligned with human preferences, through increased RLHF, were seen as more trustworthy.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by outlining the concept of Reward-Learned Human Feedback (RLHF), a technique for training AI systems to behave in ways that are aligned with human preferences. The authors hypothesize that increasing the amount of RLHF used to train a language model should lead to greater trust in the model, as it becomes more closely aligned with human values and preferences.
To test this hypothesis, the researchers conducted a series of experiments. They trained language models using varying amounts of RLHF, ranging from no RLHF to extensive RLHF. They then had human participants evaluate the trustworthiness of the different models through a series of tasks, such as assessing the models' responses to prompts and providing overall trust ratings.
The results of the experiments suggest a complex relationship between preference alignment and trust. While increased RLHF did lead to higher perceived trustworthiness in some cases, the authors also found that there were scenarios where more RLHF did not result in greater trust. The paper explores potential explanations for these findings, such as the role of model transparency and the potential for RLHF to introduce biases or limitations.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important considerations around the relationship between human preference alignment and model trustworthiness. While the authors' hypothesis that more RLHF would lead to greater trust seems intuitive, the mixed results highlight the need for further research to fully understand this dynamic.
One potential limitation of the study is the use of a relatively small number of participants to evaluate the models' trustworthiness. Expanding the scale and diversity of the user studies could provide more robust and generalizable insights.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the specific mechanisms by which RLHF may influence trust. Further investigation into the factors that mediate the relationship between preference alignment and trustworthiness, such as model transparency and the nature of the human-AI interaction, could yield valuable insights.
Conclusion
This paper provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the role of human preference alignment in the development of trustworthy AI systems. While the results suggest a complex relationship between RLHF and trust, the research highlights the importance of continued exploration in this area.
As language models become increasingly influential in our daily lives, understanding the factors that shape trust in these systems is crucial. The insights from this paper, along with further research in this direction, can help guide the development of AI systems that are not only aligned with human values but also perceived as trustworthy and reliable by the people who interact with them.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
💬
Aligning language models with human preferences
Tomasz Korbak
0
0
Language models (LMs) trained on vast quantities of text data can acquire sophisticated skills such as generating summaries, answering questions or generating code. However, they also manifest behaviors that violate human preferences, e.g., they can generate offensive content, falsehoods or perpetuate social biases. In this thesis, I explore several approaches to aligning LMs with human preferences. First, I argue that aligning LMs can be seen as Bayesian inference: conditioning a prior (base, pretrained LM) on evidence about human preferences (Chapter 2). Conditioning on human preferences can be implemented in numerous ways. In Chapter 3, I investigate the relation between two approaches to finetuning pretrained LMs using feedback given by a scoring function: reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and distribution matching. I show that RLHF can be seen as a special case of distribution matching but distributional matching is strictly more general. In chapter 4, I show how to extend the distribution matching to conditional language models. Finally, in chapter 5 I explore a different root: conditioning an LM on human preferences already during pretraining. I show that involving human feedback from the very start tends to be more effective than using it only during supervised finetuning. Overall, these results highlight the room for alignment techniques different from and complementary to RLHF.
4/19/2024
💬
Privately Aligning Language Models with Reinforcement Learning
Fan Wu, Huseyin A. Inan, Arturs Backurs, Varun Chandrasekaran, Janardhan Kulkarni, Robert Sim
0
0
Positioned between pre-training and user deployment, aligning large language models (LLMs) through reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a prevailing strategy for training instruction following-models such as ChatGPT. In this work, we initiate the study of privacy-preserving alignment of LLMs through Differential Privacy (DP) in conjunction with RL. Following the influential work of Ziegler et al. (2020), we study two dominant paradigms: (i) alignment via RL without human in the loop (e.g., positive review generation) and (ii) alignment via RL from human feedback (RLHF) (e.g., summarization in a human-preferred way). We give a new DP framework to achieve alignment via RL, and prove its correctness. Our experimental results validate the effectiveness of our approach, offering competitive utility while ensuring strong privacy protections.
5/6/2024
Learn Your Reference Model for Real Good Alignment
Alexey Gorbatovski, Boris Shaposhnikov, Alexey Malakhov, Nikita Surnachev, Yaroslav Aksenov, Ian Maksimov, Nikita Balagansky, Daniil Gavrilov
0
0
The complexity of the alignment problem stems from the fact that existing methods are unstable. Researchers continuously invent various tricks to address this shortcoming. For instance, in the fundamental Reinforcement Learning From Human Feedback (RLHF) technique of Language Model alignment, in addition to reward maximization, the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the trainable policy and the SFT policy is minimized. This addition prevents the model from being overfitted to the Reward Model (RM) and generating texts that are out-of-domain for the RM. The Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) method reformulates the optimization task of RLHF and eliminates the Reward Model while tacitly maintaining the requirement for the policy to be close to the SFT policy. In our paper, we argue that this implicit limitation in the DPO method leads to sub-optimal results. We propose a new method called Trust Region DPO (TR-DPO), which updates the reference policy during training. With such a straightforward update, we demonstrate the effectiveness of TR-DPO against DPO on the Anthropic HH and TLDR datasets. We show that TR-DPO outperforms DPO by up to 19%, measured by automatic evaluation with GPT-4. The new alignment approach that we propose allows us to improve the quality of models across several parameters at once, such as coherence, correctness, level of detail, helpfulness, and harmlessness.
4/16/2024
Understanding the Learning Dynamics of Alignment with Human Feedback
Shawn Im, Yixuan Li
0
0
Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human intentions has become a critical task for safely deploying models in real-world systems. While existing alignment approaches have seen empirical success, theoretically understanding how these methods affect model behavior remains an open question. Our work provides an initial attempt to theoretically analyze the learning dynamics of human preference alignment. We formally show how the distribution of preference datasets influences the rate of model updates and provide rigorous guarantees on the training accuracy. Our theory also reveals an intricate phenomenon where the optimization is prone to prioritizing certain behaviors with higher preference distinguishability. We empirically validate our findings on contemporary LLMs and alignment tasks, reinforcing our theoretical insights and shedding light on considerations for future alignment approaches. Disclaimer: This paper contains potentially offensive text; reader discretion is advised.
4/17/2024