Elephant in the Room: Unveiling the Impact of Reward Model Quality in Alignment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.19024v1
• Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 04:28:35 GMT
• Title: Elephant in the Room: Unveiling the Impact of Reward Model Quality in Alignment
• Authors: Yan Liu, Xiaoyuan Yi, Xiaokang Chen, Jing Yao, Jingwei Yi, Daoguang Zan, Zheng Liu, Xing Xie, Tsung-Yi Ho,
• Abstract summary: Despite vital role reward models play in alignment, previous works have consistently overlooked their performance. This work first investigates the quality of the widely-used preference dataset, HH-RLHF, and curates a clean version, CHH-RLHF. Based on CHH-RLHF, we benchmark the accuracy of a broad range of reward models used in previous alignment works, unveiling the unreliability of using them both for optimization and evaluation.
• Score: 50.21842377409232
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The demand for regulating potentially risky behaviors of large language models (LLMs) has ignited research on alignment methods. Since LLM alignment heavily relies on reward models for optimization or evaluation, neglecting the quality of reward models may cause unreliable results or even misalignment. Despite the vital role reward models play in alignment, previous works have consistently overlooked their performance and used off-the-shelf reward models arbitrarily without verification, rendering the reward model ``\emph{an elephant in the room}''. To this end, this work first investigates the quality of the widely-used preference dataset, HH-RLHF, and curates a clean version, CHH-RLHF. Based on CHH-RLHF, we benchmark the accuracy of a broad range of reward models used in previous alignment works, unveiling the unreliability of using them both for optimization and evaluation. Furthermore, we systematically study the impact of reward model quality on alignment performance in three reward utilization paradigms. Extensive experiments reveal that better reward models perform as better human preference proxies. This work aims to awaken people to notice this huge elephant in alignment research. We call attention to the following issues: (1) The reward model needs to be rigorously evaluated, whether for alignment optimization or evaluation. (2) Considering the role of reward models, research efforts should not only concentrate on alignment algorithm, but also on developing more reliable human proxy.

Related papers

• How to Evaluate Reward Models for RLHF [51.31240621943791]
  We introduce a new benchmark for reward models that quantifies their ability to produce strong language models through RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback) We build a predictive model of downstream LLM performance by evaluating the reward model on proxy tasks. We launch an end-to-end RLHF experiment on a large-scale crowdsourced human preference platform to view real reward model downstream performance as ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T21:38:21Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Confidence-aware Reward Optimization for Fine-tuning Text-to-Image Models [85.96013373385057]
  Fine-tuning text-to-image models with reward functions trained on human feedback data has proven effective for aligning model behavior with human intent. However, excessive optimization with such reward models, which serve as mere proxy objectives, can compromise the performance of fine-tuned models. We propose TextNorm, a method that enhances alignment based on a measure of reward model confidence estimated across a set of semantically contrastive text prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T11:40:38Z)
• Improving Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with Efficient Reward Model Ensemble [67.4269821365504]
  Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is a widely adopted approach for aligning large language models with human values. However, RLHF relies on a reward model that is trained with a limited amount of human preference data. We contribute a reward ensemble method that allows the reward model to make more accurate predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T00:17:37Z)
• 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)
• RAFT: Reward rAnked FineTuning for Generative Foundation Model Alignment [32.752633250862694]
  Generative foundation models are susceptible to implicit biases that can arise from extensive unsupervised training data. We introduce a new framework, Reward rAnked FineTuning, designed to align generative models effectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T18:22:40Z)
• Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization [19.93331579503503]
  We study how the gold reward model score changes as we optimize against the proxy reward model using either reinforcement learning or best-of-$n$ sampling. We also study the effect on this relationship of the size of the reward model dataset, the number of reward model and policy parameters, and the coefficient of the KL penalty added to the reward in the reinforcement learning setup.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-19T17:56:10Z)

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.