RMB: Comprehensively Benchmarking Reward Models in LLM Alignment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09893v1
• Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 16:06:54 GMT
• Title: RMB: Comprehensively Benchmarking Reward Models in LLM Alignment
• Authors: Enyu Zhou, Guodong Zheng, Binghai Wang, Zhiheng Xi, Shihan Dou, Rong Bao, Wei Shen, Limao Xiong, Jessica Fan, Yurong Mou, Rui Zheng, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, Xuanjing Huang,
• Abstract summary: Reward models (RMs) guide the alignment of large language models (LLMs) We propose RMB, a comprehensive RM benchmark that covers over 49 real-world scenarios. Based on our benchmark, we conduct extensive analysis on the state-of-the-art RMs.
• Score: 44.84304822376291
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Reward models (RMs) guide the alignment of large language models (LLMs), steering them toward behaviors preferred by humans. Evaluating RMs is the key to better aligning LLMs. However, the current evaluation of RMs may not directly correspond to their alignment performance due to the limited distribution of evaluation data and evaluation methods that are not closely related to alignment objectives. To address these limitations, we propose RMB, a comprehensive RM benchmark that covers over 49 real-world scenarios and includes both pairwise and Best-of-N (BoN) evaluations to better reflect the effectiveness of RMs in guiding alignment optimization. We demonstrate a positive correlation between our benchmark and the downstream alignment task performance. Based on our benchmark, we conduct extensive analysis on the state-of-the-art RMs, revealing their generalization defects that were not discovered by previous benchmarks, and highlighting the potential of generative RMs. Furthermore, we delve into open questions in reward models, specifically examining the effectiveness of majority voting for the evaluation of reward models and analyzing the impact factors of generative RMs, including the influence of evaluation criteria and instructing methods. Our evaluation code and datasets are available at https://github.com/Zhou-Zoey/RMB-Reward-Model-Benchmark.

Related papers

• Rethinking Reward Model Evaluation: Are We Barking up the Wrong Tree? [46.396681032860414]
  We investigate how differences in RM accuracy translate into gaps in optimized policy performance. We find that the way of measuring accuracy significantly impacts its ability to predict the final policy performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T00:52:03Z)
• Polyrating: A Cost-Effective and Bias-Aware Rating System for LLM Evaluation [5.653106385738822]
  Polyrating is an expressive and flexible rating system based on a maximum posteriori estimation. It can detect and quantify biases affecting human preferences, ensuring fairer model comparisons. It can reduce the cost of human evaluations by up to $41%$ for new models and up to $77%$ for new tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-01T11:24:54Z)
• SEAL: Systematic Error Analysis for Value ALignment [4.2185937778110825]
  Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback aims to align language models with human values. Despite its importance, the internal mechanisms of RLHF remain poorly understood. This paper introduces new metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of modeling and aligning human values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T18:48:30Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill. Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Prior Constraints-based Reward Model Training for Aligning Large Language Models [58.33118716810208]
  This paper proposes a Prior Constraints-based Reward Model (namely PCRM) training method to mitigate this problem. PCRM incorporates prior constraints, specifically, length ratio and cosine similarity between outputs of each comparison pair, during reward model training to regulate optimization magnitude and control score margins. Experimental results demonstrate that PCRM significantly improves alignment performance by effectively constraining reward score scaling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T07:49:11Z)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities in assessing the quality of generated natural language. LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Revisiting Out-of-distribution Robustness in NLP: Benchmark, Analysis, and LLMs Evaluations [111.88727295707454]
  This paper reexamines the research on out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness in the field of NLP. We propose a benchmark construction protocol that ensures clear differentiation and challenging distribution shifts. We conduct experiments on pre-trained language models for analysis and evaluation of OOD robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T17:47:03Z)

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.