Understanding the Learning Dynamics of Alignment with Human Feedback

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.18742v5
• Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 22:33:26 GMT
• Title: Understanding the Learning Dynamics of Alignment with Human Feedback
• Authors: Shawn Im, Yixuan Li,
• Abstract summary: This paper provides an attempt to theoretically analyze the learning dynamics of human preference alignment. We show how the distribution of preference datasets influences the rate of model updates and provide rigorous guarantees on the training accuracy.
• Score: 17.420727709895736
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• From Efficiency to Equity: Measuring Fairness in Preference Learning [3.2132738637761027]
  We evaluate fairness in preference learning models inspired by economic theories of inequality and Rawlsian justice. We propose metrics adapted from the Gini Coefficient, Atkinson Index, and Kuznets Ratio to quantify fairness in these models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T15:25:56Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Efficient Model-agnostic Alignment via Bayesian Persuasion [13.42367964190663]
  We introduce a model-agnostic and lightweight Bayesian Persuasion Alignment framework. In the persuasion process, the small model (Advisor) observes the information item (i.e., state) and persuades large models (Receiver) to elicit improved responses. We show that GPT-2 can significantly improve the performance of various models, achieving an average enhancement of 16.1% in mathematical reasoning ability and 13.7% in code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T02:57:07Z)
• Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Data [102.16105233826917]
  Learning from preference labels plays a crucial role in fine-tuning large language models. There are several distinct approaches for preference fine-tuning, including supervised learning, on-policy reinforcement learning (RL), and contrastive learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T17:20:18Z)
• Enhancing Fairness and Performance in Machine Learning Models: A Multi-Task Learning Approach with Monte-Carlo Dropout and Pareto Optimality [1.5498930424110338]
  This study introduces an approach to mitigate bias in machine learning by leveraging model uncertainty. Our approach utilizes a multi-task learning (MTL) framework combined with Monte Carlo (MC) Dropout to assess and mitigate uncertainty in predictions related to protected labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-12T04:17:50Z)
• Supervised Fine-Tuning as Inverse Reinforcement Learning [8.044033685073003]
  The prevailing approach to aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) typically relies on human or AI feedback. In our work, we question the efficacy of such datasets and explore various scenarios where alignment with expert demonstrations proves more realistic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T17:52:57Z)
• A Bayesian Approach to Robust Inverse Reinforcement Learning [54.24816623644148]
  We consider a Bayesian approach to offline model-based inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) The proposed framework differs from existing offline model-based IRL approaches by performing simultaneous estimation of the expert's reward function and subjective model of environment dynamics. Our analysis reveals a novel insight that the estimated policy exhibits robust performance when the expert is believed to have a highly accurate model of the environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-15T17:37:09Z)
• Understanding Self-Predictive Learning for Reinforcement Learning [61.62067048348786]
  We study the learning dynamics of self-predictive learning for reinforcement learning. We propose a novel self-predictive algorithm that learns two representations simultaneously.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-06T20:43:37Z)
• Scalable PAC-Bayesian Meta-Learning via the PAC-Optimal Hyper-Posterior: From Theory to Practice [54.03076395748459]
  A central question in the meta-learning literature is how to regularize to ensure generalization to unseen tasks. We present a generalization bound for meta-learning, which was first derived by Rothfuss et al. We provide a theoretical analysis and empirical case study under which conditions and to what extent these guarantees for meta-learning improve upon PAC-Bayesian per-task learning bounds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-14T08:51:04Z)
• Fair Representation Learning using Interpolation Enabled Disentanglement [9.043741281011304]
  We propose a novel method to address two key issues: (a) Can we simultaneously learn fair disentangled representations while ensuring the utility of the learned representation for downstream tasks, and (b)Can we provide theoretical insights into when the proposed approach will be both fair and accurate. To address the former, we propose the method FRIED, Fair Representation learning using Interpolation Enabled Disentanglement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-31T17:32:12Z)
• Value-driven Hindsight Modelling [68.658900923595]
  Value estimation is a critical component of the reinforcement learning (RL) paradigm. Model learning can make use of the rich transition structure present in sequences of observations, but this approach is usually not sensitive to the reward function. We develop an approach for representation learning in RL that sits in between these two extremes. This provides tractable prediction targets that are directly relevant for a task, and can thus accelerate learning the value function.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-19T18:10:20Z)

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.