REVIEW 1 cited by
Online Learning from Strategic Human Feedback in LLM Fine-Tuning
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
abstract
Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has become an essential step in fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) to align them with human preferences. However, human labelers are selfish and have diverse preferences. They may strategically misreport their online feedback to influence the system's aggregation towards their own preferences. Current practice simply averages labelers' feedback per time and fails to identify the most accurate human labeler, leading to linear regret $\mathcal{O}(T)$ for $T$ time slots. To our best knowledge, we are the first to study online learning mechanisms against strategic human labelers in the LLM fine-tuning process. We formulate a new dynamic Bayesian game and dynamically adjust human labelers' weights in the preference aggregation, ensuring their truthful feedback and sublinear regret $\mathcal{O}(T^{1/2})$. Simulation results demonstrate our mechanism's great advantages over the existing benchmark schemes.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Battling Influencers Game: Nash Equilibria Structure of a Potential Game and Implications to Value Alignment
A new potential game shows that when influencers compete to shape a receiver's aggregate opinion, any pure Nash equilibrium forces all but at most one influencer to the most extreme allowed action.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.