What Makes a Reward Model a Good Teacher? An Optimization Perspective

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15477v1
• Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:54:41 GMT
• Title: What Makes a Reward Model a Good Teacher? An Optimization Perspective
• Authors: Noam Razin, Zixuan Wang, Hubert Strauss, Stanley Wei, Jason D. Lee, Sanjeev Arora,
• Abstract summary: We prove that regardless of accurate a reward model is, if it induces low reward variance, the RLHF objective suffers from a flat landscape.<n>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.
• Score: 61.38643642719093
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The success of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) critically depends on the quality of the reward model. While this quality is primarily evaluated through accuracy, it remains unclear whether accuracy fully captures what makes a reward model an effective teacher. We address this question from an optimization perspective. First, we prove that regardless of how accurate a reward model is, if it induces low reward variance, then the RLHF objective suffers from a flat landscape. Consequently, even a perfectly accurate reward model can lead to extremely slow optimization, underperforming less accurate models that induce higher reward variance. 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. These results establish a fundamental limitation of evaluating reward models solely based on accuracy or independently of the language model they guide. Experiments using models of up to 8B parameters corroborate our theory, demonstrating the interplay between reward variance, accuracy, and reward maximization rate. Overall, our findings highlight that beyond accuracy, a reward model needs to induce sufficient variance for efficient optimization.

Related papers

• Agentic Reward Modeling: Integrating Human Preferences with Verifiable Correctness Signals for Reliable Reward Systems [54.4392552373835]
  Reward models (RMs) are crucial for the training and inference-time scaling up of large language models (LLMs) We propose agentic reward modeling, a reward system that combines reward models with verifiable correctness signals to provide reliable rewards. We conduct comprehensive experiments on existing reward model benchmarks and inference time best-of-n searches on real-world downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T17:19:12Z)
• Self-Generated Critiques Boost Reward Modeling for Language Models [57.60881438647227]
  Critic-RM is a framework that improves reward models using self-generated critiques without extra supervision. Experiments show that Critic-RM improves reward modeling accuracy by 3.7%-7.3% compared to standard reward models and LLM judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T18:28:26Z)
• Towards Reliable Alignment: Uncertainty-aware RLHF [14.20181662644689]
  We show that the fluctuation of reward models can be detrimental to the alignment problem. We show that such policies are more risk-averse in the sense that they are more cautious of uncertain rewards. We use this ensemble of reward models to align language model using our methodology and observe that our empirical findings match our theoretical predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T08:26:51Z)
• The Accuracy Paradox in RLHF: When Better Reward Models Don't Yield Better Language Models [18.64902083536956]
  We show that language models trained with moderately accurate reward models outperform those guided by highly accurate ones. This challenges the widely held belief that stronger reward models always lead to better language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T05:17:08Z)
• 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)
• Elephant in the Room: Unveiling the Impact of Reward Model Quality in Alignment [50.21842377409232]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T04:28:35Z)
• Critique-out-Loud Reward Models [20.631830494414096]
  We introduce Critique-out-Loud (CLoud) reward models. CLoud reward models operate by first generating a natural language critique of the assistant's response. We demonstrate the success of CLoud reward models for both Llama-3-8B and 70B base models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-21T17:24:15Z)
• 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)
• Helping or Herding? Reward Model Ensembles Mitigate but do not Eliminate Reward Hacking [62.146953368613815]
  Reward models play a key role in aligning language model applications towards human preferences. A natural mitigation is to train an ensemble of reward models, aggregating over model outputs to obtain a more robust reward estimate. We show that reward ensembles do not eliminate reward hacking because all reward models in the ensemble exhibit similar error patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T18:59:04Z)
• 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.