RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.13787v2
• Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 16:40:12 GMT
• Title: RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling
• Authors: Nathan Lambert, Valentina Pyatkin, Jacob Morrison, LJ Miranda, Bill Yuchen Lin, Khyathi Chandu, Nouha Dziri, Sachin Kumar, Tom Zick, Yejin Choi, Noah A. Smith, Hannaneh Hajishirzi,
• Abstract summary: We present RewardBench, a benchmark dataset and code-base for evaluation of reward models. The dataset is a collection of prompt-chosen-rejected trios spanning chat, reasoning, and safety. On the RewardBench leaderboard, we evaluate reward models trained with a variety of methods.
• Score: 100.28366840977966
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Reward models (RMs) are at the crux of successfully using RLHF to align pretrained models to human preferences, yet there has been relatively little study that focuses on evaluation of those models. Evaluating reward models presents an opportunity to understand the opaque technologies used for alignment of language models and which values are embedded in them. Resources for reward model training and understanding are sparse in the nascent open-source community around them. To enhance scientific understanding of reward models, we present RewardBench, a benchmark dataset and code-base for evaluation. The RewardBench dataset is a collection of prompt-chosen-rejected trios spanning chat, reasoning, and safety, to benchmark how reward models perform on challenging, structured and out-of-distribution queries. We create specific comparison datasets for RMs that have subtle, but verifiable reasons (e.g. bugs, incorrect facts) why one answer should be preferred to another. On the RewardBench leaderboard, we evaluate reward models trained with a variety of methods, such as the direct MLE training of classifiers and the implicit reward modeling of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). We present many findings on propensity for refusals, reasoning limitations, and instruction following shortcomings of various reward models towards a better understanding of the RLHF process.

Related papers

• Rethinking Bradley-Terry Models in Preference-Based Reward Modeling: Foundations, Theory, and Alternatives [14.401557416713315]
  We revisit the foundations of using Bradley-Terry (BT) models in reward modeling. We argue that the BT model is not a necessary choice from the perspective of downstream optimization. We propose a simple and straightforward upper-bound algorithm, compatible with off-the-shelf binary classifiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T18:57:03Z)
• RM-Bench: Benchmarking Reward Models of Language Models with Subtlety and Style [37.97757796124621]
  RM-Bench is a novel benchmark designed to evaluate reward models based on their sensitivity to subtle content differences and resistance to style biases. We evaluate nearly 40 reward models on RM-Bench and find that even state-of-the-art models achieve an average performance of only 46.6%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T16:48:26Z)
• General Preference Modeling with Preference Representations for Aligning Language Models [51.14207112118503]
  We introduce preference representation learning, an approach that embeds responses into a latent space to capture intricate preference structures efficiently. We also propose preference score-based General Preference Optimization (GPO), which generalizes reward-based reinforcement learning from human feedback. Our method may enhance the alignment of foundation models with nuanced human values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T04:22:55Z)
• Evaluating Robustness of Reward Models for Mathematical Reasoning [14.97819343313859]
  We introduce a new design for reliable evaluation of reward models, and to validate this, we construct RewardMATH. We demonstrate that the scores on RewardMATH strongly correlate with the results of optimized policy and effectively estimate reward overoptimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T16:39:58Z)
• Quantile Regression for Distributional Reward Models in RLHF [1.8130068086063336]
  We introduce Quantile Reward Models (QRMs), a novel approach to reward modeling that learns a distribution over rewards instead of a single scalar value. Our method uses quantile regression to estimate a full, potentially multimodal distribution over preferences, providing a more powerful and nuanced representation of preferences. Our experimental results show that QRM outperforms comparable traditional point-estimate models on RewardBench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-16T10:54:04Z)
• Self-Taught Evaluators [77.92610887220594]
  We present an approach that aims to im-proves without human annotations, using synthetic training data only. Our Self-Taught Evaluator can improve a strong LLM from 75.4 to 88.3 on RewardBench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T17:57:02Z)
• HAF-RM: A Hybrid Alignment Framework for Reward Model Training [51.59246299566669]
  We propose a hybrid alignment framework HaF-RM for reward model training. It offers a principled and effective approach to enhancing the performance and alignment of reward models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T23:26:56Z)
• DogeRM: Equipping Reward Models with Domain Knowledge through Model Merging [65.41765072566287]
  We propose textbfDomain knowledtextbfge merged textbfReward textbfModel (DogeRM), a novel framework that integrates domain-specific knowledge into a general reward model by model merging.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T17:01:54Z)
• Secrets of RLHF in Large Language Models Part II: Reward Modeling [134.97964938009588]
  We introduce a series of novel methods to mitigate the influence of incorrect and ambiguous preferences in the dataset. We also introduce contrastive learning to enhance the ability of reward models to distinguish between chosen and rejected responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-11T17:56:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.