Reward Model Learning vs. Direct Policy Optimization: A Comparative Analysis of Learning from Human Preferences
2403.01857
0
0
📈
Abstract
In this paper, we take a step towards a deeper understanding of learning from human preferences by systematically comparing the paradigm of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) with the recently proposed paradigm of direct preference optimization (DPO). We focus our attention on the class of loglinear policy parametrization and linear reward functions. In order to compare the two paradigms, we first derive minimax statistical bounds on the suboptimality gap induced by both RLHF and DPO, assuming access to an oracle that exactly solves the optimization problems. We provide a detailed discussion on the relative comparison between the two paradigms, simultaneously taking into account the sample size, policy and reward class dimensions, and the regularization temperature. Moreover, we extend our analysis to the approximate optimization setting and derive exponentially decaying convergence rates for both RLHF and DPO. Next, we analyze the setting where the ground-truth reward is not realizable and find that, while RLHF incurs a constant additional error, DPO retains its asymptotically decaying gap by just tuning the temperature accordingly. Finally, we extend our comparison to the Markov decision process setting, where we generalize our results with exact optimization. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to provide such a comparative analysis for RLHF and DPO.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The paper compares two approaches for learning from human preferences: Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO).
- It focuses on the specific case of loglinear policy parametrization and linear reward functions.
- The paper derives statistical bounds on the suboptimality gap for both RLHF and DPO, considering factors like sample size, policy/reward dimensions, and regularization temperature.
- It also analyzes the approximate optimization and non-realizable reward settings, and extends the comparison to Markov Decision Processes.
Plain English Explanation
The paper is looking at two different ways that AI systems can learn from human preferences: Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO).
The researchers focus on a specific type of AI system that uses loglinear policies (a mathematical way of modeling the decision-making process) and linear reward functions (a simple way of defining what the system should try to maximize).
They wanted to understand how well these two learning approaches perform in different situations. So they did some mathematical analysis to figure out the best-case and worst-case scenarios for each approach, looking at factors like the amount of data available, the complexity of the policies and rewards, and how much the system is "regularized" to prevent overfitting.
The key findings are:
- Exact Optimization: When the system can perfectly optimize the policies and rewards, RLHF and DPO have different strengths. RLHF may be better when there is less data, while DPO can perform better with more data.
- Approximate Optimization: When the system can only approximately optimize, both RLHF and DPO have exponentially decaying error rates, but the constants differ.
- Non-Realizable Rewards: If the true human preferences can't be exactly represented by the linear reward function, RLHF has a constant additional error, while DPO can still converge to the optimal policy by adjusting the regularization.
The paper also extends the analysis to more complex Markov Decision Process settings, generalizing the results.
Technical Explanation
The paper provides a detailed mathematical analysis and comparison of two paradigms for learning from human preferences: Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO).
The researchers focus on the class of loglinear policy parametrization and linear reward functions. They first derive minimax statistical bounds on the suboptimality gap induced by both RLHF and DPO, assuming access to an oracle that can exactly solve the optimization problems.
The analysis considers the impact of sample size, policy/reward class dimensions, and the regularization temperature. The paper then extends the comparison to the approximate optimization setting, deriving exponentially decaying convergence rates for both RLHF and DPO.
Next, the researchers analyze the setting where the ground-truth reward is not realizable by the linear reward function. They find that while RLHF incurs a constant additional error, DPO can retain its asymptotically decaying gap by tuning the temperature parameter.
Finally, the paper generalizes the comparison to the Markov Decision Process setting, providing results for the exact optimization case.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a rigorous and comprehensive comparison of RLHF and DPO, making several important contributions to the understanding of learning from human preferences.
One key limitation is the focus on the specific case of loglinear policies and linear rewards. While this allows for a more detailed mathematical analysis, it may limit the generalizability of the findings to more complex real-world scenarios. Hybrid Preference Optimization and Exploratory Preference Optimization are two related approaches that could be interesting to compare as well.
Additionally, the paper only considers the theoretical, oracle-based optimization case and the approximate optimization case. It would be valuable to see empirical comparisons of RLHF and DPO on real-world tasks, which could uncover practical considerations and tradeoffs not captured by the analysis.
Overall, this paper represents an important step towards a deeper understanding of learning from human preferences. The insights on the relative strengths of RLHF and DPO under different conditions can inform the design and selection of appropriate learning approaches for AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper provides a systematic comparison of two prominent paradigms for learning from human preferences: Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). The researchers derive statistical bounds, analyze approximate optimization and non-realizable rewards, and extend the comparison to Markov Decision Processes.
The key findings suggest that RLHF and DPO have different strengths depending on factors like sample size, problem complexity, and the realizability of the reward function. These insights can help guide the selection and development of appropriate learning approaches for AI systems that need to align with human preferences.
While the analysis is limited to the specific case of loglinear policies and linear rewards, the paper represents an important contribution to the understanding of learning from human feedback. Further research is needed to explore the performance of these approaches in more complex, real-world scenarios.
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
Direct Preference Optimization With Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity
Keertana Chidambaram, Karthik Vinay Seetharaman, Vasilis Syrgkanis
0
0
RLHF has emerged as a pivotal step in aligning language models with human objectives and values. It typically involves learning a reward model from human preference data and then using reinforcement learning to update the generative model accordingly. Conversely, Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) directly optimizes the generative model with preference data, skipping reinforcement learning. However, both RLHF and DPO assume uniform preferences, overlooking the reality of diverse human annotators. This paper presents a new method to align generative models with varied human preferences. We propose an Expectation-Maximization adaptation to DPO, generating a mixture of models based on latent preference types of the annotators. We then introduce a min-max regret ensemble learning model to produce a single generative method to minimize worst-case regret among annotator subgroups with similar latent factors. Our algorithms leverage the simplicity of DPO while accommodating diverse preferences. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of our approach in producing equitable generative policies.
5/27/2024
Is DPO Superior to PPO for LLM Alignment? A Comprehensive Study
Shusheng Xu, Wei Fu, Jiaxuan Gao, Wenjie Ye, Weilin Liu, Zhiyu Mei, Guangju Wang, Chao Yu, Yi Wu
0
0
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is currently the most widely used method to align large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Existing RLHF methods can be roughly categorized as either reward-based or reward-free. Novel applications such as ChatGPT and Claude leverage reward-based methods that first learn a reward model and apply actor-critic algorithms, such as Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO). However, in academic benchmarks, state-of-the-art results are often achieved via reward-free methods, such as Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Is DPO truly superior to PPO? Why does PPO perform poorly on these benchmarks? In this paper, we first conduct both theoretical and empirical studies on the algorithmic properties of DPO and show that DPO may have fundamental limitations. Moreover, we also comprehensively examine PPO and reveal the key factors for the best performances of PPO in fine-tuning LLMs. Finally, we benchmark DPO and PPO across a collection of RLHF testbeds, ranging from dialogue to code generation. Experiment results demonstrate that PPO is able to surpass other alignment methods in all cases and achieve state-of-the-art results in challenging code competitions.
4/23/2024
Iterative Preference Learning from Human Feedback: Bridging Theory and Practice for RLHF under KL-Constraint
Wei Xiong, Hanze Dong, Chenlu Ye, Ziqi Wang, Han Zhong, Heng Ji, Nan Jiang, Tong Zhang
0
0
This paper studies the alignment process of generative models with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). We first identify the primary challenges of existing popular methods like offline PPO and offline DPO as lacking in strategical exploration of the environment. Then, to understand the mathematical principle of RLHF, we consider a standard mathematical formulation, the reverse-KL regularized contextual bandit for RLHF. Despite its widespread practical application, a rigorous theoretical analysis of this formulation remains open. We investigate its behavior in three distinct settings -- offline, online, and hybrid -- and propose efficient algorithms with finite-sample theoretical guarantees. Moving towards practical applications, our framework, with a robust approximation of the information-theoretical policy improvement oracle, naturally gives rise to several novel RLHF algorithms. This includes an iterative version of the Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) algorithm for online settings, and a multi-step rejection sampling strategy for offline scenarios. Our empirical evaluations on real-world alignment experiment of large language model demonstrate that these proposed methods significantly surpass existing strong baselines, such as DPO and Rejection Sampling Optimization (RSO), showcasing the connections between solid theoretical foundations and their potent practical implementations.
5/2/2024
Hybrid Preference Optimization: Augmenting Direct Preference Optimization with Auxiliary Objectives
Anirudhan Badrinath, Prabhat Agarwal, Jiajing Xu
0
0
For aligning large language models (LLMs), prior work has leveraged reinforcement learning via human feedback (RLHF) or variations of direct preference optimization (DPO). While DPO offers a simpler framework based on maximum likelihood estimation, it compromises on the ability to tune language models to easily maximize non-differentiable and non-binary objectives according to the LLM designer's preferences (e.g., using simpler language or minimizing specific kinds of harmful content). These may neither align with user preferences nor even be able to be captured tractably by binary preference data. To leverage the simplicity and performance of DPO with the generalizability of RL, we propose a hybrid approach between DPO and RLHF. With a simple augmentation to the implicit reward decomposition of DPO, we allow for tuning LLMs to maximize a set of arbitrary auxiliary rewards using offline RL. The proposed method, Hybrid Preference Optimization (HPO), shows the ability to effectively generalize to both user preferences and auxiliary designer objectives, while preserving alignment performance across a range of challenging benchmarks and model sizes.
5/31/2024