Towards Understanding the Influence of Reward Margin on Preference Model Performance
2404.04932
0
0
Abstract
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is a widely used framework for the training of language models. However, the process of using RLHF to develop a language model that is well-aligned presents challenges, especially when it comes to optimizing the reward model. Our research has found that existing reward models, when trained using the traditional ranking objective based on human preference data, often struggle to effectively distinguish between responses that are more or less favorable in real-world scenarios. To bridge this gap, our study introduces a novel method to estimate the preference differences without the need for detailed, exhaustive labels from human annotators. Our experimental results provide empirical evidence that incorporating margin values into the training process significantly improves the effectiveness of reward models. This comparative analysis not only demonstrates the superiority of our approach in terms of reward prediction accuracy but also highlights its effectiveness in practical applications.
Get summaries of the top AI research delivered straight to your inbox:
Overview
- This paper investigates the influence of reward margin on the performance of preference learning models.
- Reward margin refers to the difference in the reward values assigned to preferred and non-preferred items.
- The researchers conducted experiments to understand how varying reward margins impact the ability of preference models to learn user preferences accurately.
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores how the reward margin - the difference in the reward values given to options a person prefers versus those they don't prefer - affects the performance of models that try to learn those preferences. The researchers conducted experiments to see how changing the reward margin influences the model's ability to accurately capture a person's true preferences.
For example, imagine you're rating movies and giving a score of 5 stars to movies you love and 1 star to movies you dislike. The reward margin would be the difference between those scores - in this case, 4 stars. The paper examines how varying that margin, like using 10 stars for favorites and 1 star for dislikes (a margin of 9), or 5 stars and 2 stars (a margin of 3), impacts the model's performance in learning your true movie preferences.
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates how the reward margin - the difference in reward values assigned to preferred and non-preferred items - influences the performance of preference learning models. The researchers conducted experiments using synthetic and real-world datasets, where they varied the reward margin and evaluated the model's ability to accurately learn user preferences.
The key elements of the paper include:
- Experiment Design: The researchers created synthetic datasets with varying reward margins and also used real-world preference datasets. They then trained preference models on these datasets and evaluated their performance.
- Model Architecture: The paper focuses on preference learning models, which aim to capture a user's relative preferences between items rather than absolute ratings.
- Insights: The results show that the reward margin has a significant impact on the model's performance, with higher margins generally leading to better preference learning. However, the researchers also found that too large of a margin can lead to overfitting and decreased generalization.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough investigation of the role of reward margin in preference learning and offers valuable insights. However, there are a few potential limitations and areas for further research:
- The experiments were conducted on a limited set of datasets, and it would be valuable to validate the findings on a broader range of preference data, including those with different characteristics and sources.
- The paper focuses on a specific type of preference learning model, and it would be interesting to see how the findings extend to other model architectures, such as those used in RLHF or reward modeling approaches.
- The researchers acknowledge that the optimal reward margin may depend on the specific task and dataset, and further exploration of the factors that influence this optimal value could provide additional insights.
Overall, the paper offers a valuable contribution to understanding the role of reward margin in preference learning and highlights the need for careful consideration of this hyperparameter when designing and evaluating such models.
Conclusion
This paper explores the influence of reward margin on the performance of preference learning models. The researchers conducted experiments using synthetic and real-world datasets, demonstrating that the reward margin - the difference in reward values assigned to preferred and non-preferred items - has a significant impact on the model's ability to accurately capture user preferences.
The findings suggest that larger reward margins generally lead to better preference learning, but too large of a margin can result in overfitting and decreased generalization. These insights have implications for the design and optimization of preference learning systems, as well as the broader field of reward modeling and RLHF approaches. Continued research in this area could help unlock the full potential of these techniques for aligning AI systems with human preferences.
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
🏅
Online Iterative Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with General Preference Model
Chenlu Ye, Wei Xiong, Yuheng Zhang, Nan Jiang, Tong Zhang
0
0
We study Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) under a general preference oracle. In particular, we do not assume that there exists a reward function and the preference signal is drawn from the Bradley-Terry model as most of the prior works do. We consider a standard mathematical formulation, the reverse-KL regularized minimax game between two LLMs for RLHF under general preference oracle. The learning objective of this formulation is to find a policy so that it is consistently preferred by the KL-regularized preference oracle over any competing LLMs. We show that this framework is strictly more general than the reward-based one, and propose sample-efficient algorithms for both the offline learning from a pre-collected preference dataset and online learning where we can query the preference oracle along the way of training. Empirical studies verify the effectiveness of the proposed framework.
4/26/2024
📶
Contrastive Preference Learning: Learning from Human Feedback without RL
Joey Hejna, Rafael Rafailov, Harshit Sikchi, Chelsea Finn, Scott Niekum, W. Bradley Knox, Dorsa Sadigh
0
0
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has emerged as a popular paradigm for aligning models with human intent. Typically RLHF algorithms operate in two phases: first, use human preferences to learn a reward function and second, align the model by optimizing the learned reward via reinforcement learning (RL). This paradigm assumes that human preferences are distributed according to reward, but recent work suggests that they instead follow the regret under the user's optimal policy. Thus, learning a reward function from feedback is not only based on a flawed assumption of human preference, but also leads to unwieldy optimization challenges that stem from policy gradients or bootstrapping in the RL phase. Because of these optimization challenges, contemporary RLHF methods restrict themselves to contextual bandit settings (e.g., as in large language models) or limit observation dimensionality (e.g., state-based robotics). We overcome these limitations by introducing a new family of algorithms for optimizing behavior from human feedback using the regret-based model of human preferences. Using the principle of maximum entropy, we derive Contrastive Preference Learning (CPL), an algorithm for learning optimal policies from preferences without learning reward functions, circumventing the need for RL. CPL is fully off-policy, uses only a simple contrastive objective, and can be applied to arbitrary MDPs. This enables CPL to elegantly scale to high-dimensional and sequential RLHF problems while being simpler than prior methods.
5/1/2024
Leveraging Domain Knowledge for Efficient Reward Modelling in RLHF: A Case-Study in E-Commerce Opinion Summarization
Swaroop Nath, Tejpalsingh Siledar, Sankara Sri Raghava Ravindra Muddu, Rupasai Rangaraju, Harshad Khadilkar, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, Suman Banerjee, Amey Patil, Sudhanshu Shekhar Singh, Muthusamy Chelliah, Nikesh Garera
0
0
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has become a dominating strategy in aligning Language Models (LMs) with human values/goals. The key to the strategy is learning a reward model ($varphi$), which can reflect the latent reward model of humans. While this strategy has proven effective, the training methodology requires a lot of human preference annotation (usually in the order of tens of thousands) to train $varphi$. Such a large-scale annotation is justifiable when it's a one-time effort, and the reward model is universally applicable. However, human goals are subjective and depend on the task, requiring task-specific preference annotations, which can be impractical to fulfill. To address this challenge, we propose a novel approach to infuse domain knowledge into $varphi$, which reduces the amount of preference annotation required ($21times$), omits Alignment Tax, and provides some interpretability. We validate our approach in E-Commerce Opinion Summarization, with a significant reduction in dataset size (to just $940$ samples) while advancing the SOTA ($sim4$ point ROUGE-L improvement, $68%$ of times preferred by humans over SOTA). Our contributions include a novel Reward Modeling technique and two new datasets: PromptOpinSumm (supervised data for Opinion Summarization) and OpinPref (a gold-standard human preference dataset). The proposed methodology opens up avenues for efficient RLHF, making it more adaptable to applications with varying human values. We release the artifacts (Code: github.com/efficient-rlhf. PromptOpinSumm: hf.co/prompt-opin-summ. OpinPref: hf.co/opin-pref) for usage under MIT License.
4/19/2024
RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs
Shreyas Chaudhari, Pranjal Aggarwal, Vishvak Murahari, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Ashwin Kalyan, Karthik Narasimhan, Ameet Deshpande, Bruno Castro da Silva
0
0
State-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) have become indispensable tools for various tasks. However, training LLMs to serve as effective assistants for humans requires careful consideration. A promising approach is reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), which leverages human feedback to update the model in accordance with human preferences and mitigate issues like toxicity and hallucinations. Yet, an understanding of RLHF for LLMs is largely entangled with initial design choices that popularized the method and current research focuses on augmenting those choices rather than fundamentally improving the framework. In this paper, we analyze RLHF through the lens of reinforcement learning principles to develop an understanding of its fundamentals, dedicating substantial focus to the core component of RLHF -- the reward model. Our study investigates modeling choices, caveats of function approximation, and their implications on RLHF training algorithms, highlighting the underlying assumptions made about the expressivity of reward. Our analysis improves the understanding of the role of reward models and methods for their training, concurrently revealing limitations of the current methodology. We characterize these limitations, including incorrect generalization, model misspecification, and the sparsity of feedback, along with their impact on the performance of a language model. The discussion and analysis are substantiated by a categorical review of current literature, serving as a reference for researchers and practitioners to understand the challenges of RLHF and build upon existing efforts.
4/17/2024