REVIEW 5 cited by
How to Evaluate Reward Models for RLHF
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
How to Evaluate Reward Models for RLHF
read the original abstract
We introduce a new benchmark for reward models that quantifies their ability to produce strong language models through RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback). The gold-standard approach is to run a full RLHF training pipeline and directly probe downstream LLM performance. However, this process is prohibitively expensive. To address this, we build a predictive model of downstream LLM performance by evaluating the reward model on proxy tasks. These proxy tasks consist of a large-scale human preference and a verifiable correctness preference dataset, in which we measure 12 metrics across 12 domains. To investigate which reward model metrics are most correlated to gold-standard RLHF outcomes, 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. Ultimately, we compile our data and findings into Preference Proxy Evaluations (PPE), the first reward model benchmark explicitly linked to post-RLHF real-world human preference performance, which we open-source for public use and further development. Our code and evaluations can be found at https://github.com/lmarena/PPE .
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
CompliBench: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Compliance Violation Detection in Dialogue Systems
CompliBench uses simulation and adversarial flaw injection to create labeled dialogue data showing that top proprietary LLMs perform poorly at spotting guideline violations while fine-tuned smaller models outperform t...
-
RewardBench 2: Advancing Reward Model Evaluation
RewardBench 2 is a new benchmark that supplies challenging fresh human prompts for reward model evaluation, yielding lower average scores but higher correlation with downstream best-of-N sampling and RLHF training per...
-
A Survey on Evaluating Quality and Trustworthiness in LLM-Generated Data
A metric-oriented survey that classifies intrinsic quality and trustworthiness metrics for LLM-generated data across six modalities and documents systematic evaluation gaps in the current literature.
-
Active Query Selection for Crowd-Based Reinforcement Learning
Extending the Advise algorithm with variational crowd modelling and entropy-based query selection yields faster learning in small tabular RL tasks, especially highly constrained ones.
-
Qwen2.5 Technical Report
Qwen2.5 LLMs scale pre-training data to 18 trillion tokens and apply multistage reinforcement learning, achieving competitive performance on benchmarks with models up to 5 times larger.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.