RATE: Causal Explainability of Reward Models with Imperfect Counterfactuals

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11348v2
• Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2025 22:02:31 GMT
• Title: RATE: Causal Explainability of Reward Models with Imperfect Counterfactuals
• Authors: David Reber, Sean Richardson, Todd Nief, Cristina Garbacea, Victor Veitch,
• Abstract summary: We develop Rewrite-based Attribute Treatment Estimator (RATE) as an effective method for measuring the sensitivity of a reward model to attributes.<n>RATE uses LLMs to rewrite responses to produce imperfect counterfactual examples that can be used to measure causal effects.<n>We establish the validity of the RATE procedure and show empirically that it is an effective estimator.
• Score: 11.121749884408331
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Reward models are widely used as proxies for human preferences when aligning or evaluating LLMs. However, reward models are black boxes, and it is often unclear what, exactly, they are actually rewarding. In this paper we develop Rewrite-based Attribute Treatment Estimator (RATE) as an effective method for measuring the sensitivity of a reward model to high-level attributes of responses, such as sentiment, helpfulness, or complexity. Importantly, RATE measures the causal effect of an attribute on the reward. RATE uses LLMs to rewrite responses to produce imperfect counterfactual examples that can be used to measure causal effects. A key challenge is that these rewrites are imperfect in a manner that can induce substantial bias in the estimated sensitivity of the reward model to the attribute. The core idea of RATE is to adjust for this imperfect-rewrite effect by rewriting twice. We establish the validity of the RATE procedure and show empirically that it is an effective estimator.

Related papers

• R-PRM: Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling [53.06844294668382]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a promising solution by evaluating each reasoning step. Existing PRMs typically output evaluation scores directly, limiting both learning efficiency and evaluation accuracy. We propose Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling (R-PRM) R-PRM generates seed data from limited annotations, effectively bootstrapping our model's reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T09:23:08Z)
• What Makes a Reward Model a Good Teacher? An Optimization Perspective [61.38643642719093]
  We prove that regardless of accurate a reward model is, if it induces low reward variance, the RLHF objective suffers from a flat landscape. We additionally show that a reward model that works well for one language model can induce low reward variance, and thus a flat objective landscape, for another.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T17:54:41Z)
• REINFORCE Adversarial Attacks on Large Language Models: An Adaptive, Distributional, and Semantic Objective [57.57786477441956]
  We propose an adaptive and semantic optimization problem over the population of responses. Our objective doubles the attack success rate (ASR) on Llama3 and increases the ASR from 2% to 50% with circuit breaker defense.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T15:34:48Z)
• Reward Models Identify Consistency, Not Causality [54.987590763737145]
  State-of-the-art reward models prioritize structural consistency over causal correctness. Removing the problem statement has minimal impact on reward scores. altering numerical values or disrupting the reasoning flow significantly affects RM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T14:57:14Z)
• Beyond Reward Hacking: Causal Rewards for Large Language Model Alignment [30.605500809158986]
  We propose a novel causal reward modeling approach that integrates causal inference to mitigate spurious correlations. Our approach mitigates various types of spurious correlations effectively, resulting in more reliable and fair alignment of LLMs with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-16T16:00:37Z)
• R3HF: Reward Redistribution for Enhancing Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback [25.27230140274847]
  Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) provides a paradigm for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. This paper proposes a novel reward redistribution method called R3HF, which facilitates a more fine-grained, token-level reward allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T02:45:21Z)
• CREAM: Consistency Regularized Self-Rewarding Language Models [34.325289477993586]
  Self-rewarding large language models (LLM) have successfully applied LLM-as-a-Judge to improve the alignment performance without the need of human annotations for preference data. However, there is no guarantee of accuracy in the rewarding and ranking, which is critical for ensuring accurate rewards and high-quality preference data. We propose a Consistency Regularized sElf-rewarding lAnguage Model (CREAM) that leverages the consistency of rewards across different iterations to regularize the self-rewarding training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T16:51:01Z)
• 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)
• Beyond Thumbs Up/Down: Untangling Challenges of Fine-Grained Feedback for Text-to-Image Generation [67.88747330066049]
  Fine-grained feedback captures nuanced distinctions in image quality and prompt-alignment. We show that demonstrating its superiority to coarse-grained feedback is not automatic. We identify key challenges in eliciting and utilizing fine-grained feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T17:19:34Z)
• Jailbreaking as a Reward Misspecification Problem [80.52431374743998]
  We propose a novel perspective that attributes this vulnerability to reward misspecification during the alignment process. We introduce a metric ReGap to quantify the extent of reward misspecification and demonstrate its effectiveness. We present ReMiss, a system for automated red teaming that generates adversarial prompts in a reward-misspecified space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T15:12:27Z)
• RaFe: Ranking Feedback Improves Query Rewriting for RAG [83.24385658573198]
  We propose a framework for training query rewriting models free of annotations. By leveraging a publicly available reranker, oursprovides feedback aligned well with the rewriting objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T11:00:19Z)
• 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)
• RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling [100.28366840977966]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-20T17:49:54Z)
• A Baseline Analysis of Reward Models' Ability To Accurately Analyze Foundation Models Under Distribution Shift [2.2310395620011945]
  We evaluate how reward model performance is affected by distribution shift. We show novel calibration patterns and accuracy drops due to OOD prompts and responses. We adapt an OOD detection technique commonly used in classification to the reward model setting to detect these distribution shifts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-21T18:41:26Z)
• Fine-Grained Human Feedback Gives Better Rewards for Language Model Training [108.25635150124539]
  Language models (LMs) often exhibit undesirable text generation behaviors, including generating false, toxic, or irrelevant outputs. We introduce Fine-Grained RLHF, a framework that enables training and learning from reward functions that are fine-grained in two respects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-02T17:11:37Z)
• Reward Collapse in Aligning Large Language Models [64.98482888193267]
  We study the phenomenon of textitreward collapse', an empirical observation where the prevailing ranking-based approach results in an textitidentical reward distribution. Our experimental results suggest that our proposed prompt-aware utility functions significantly alleviate reward collapse during the training of reward models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-28T02:12:00Z)
• 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.