REVIEW 3 cited by
Provable Multi-Party Reinforcement Learning with Diverse Human Feedback
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
read the original abstract
Reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) is an emerging paradigm to align models with human preferences. Typically, RLHF aggregates preferences from multiple individuals who have diverse viewpoints that may conflict with each other. Our work \textit{initiates} the theoretical study of multi-party RLHF that explicitly models the diverse preferences of multiple individuals. We show how traditional RLHF approaches can fail since learning a single reward function cannot capture and balance the preferences of multiple individuals. To overcome such limitations, we incorporate meta-learning to learn multiple preferences and adopt different social welfare functions to aggregate the preferences across multiple parties. We focus on the offline learning setting and establish sample complexity bounds, along with efficiency and fairness guarantees, for optimizing diverse social welfare functions such as Nash, Utilitarian, and Leximin welfare functions. Our results show a separation between the sample complexities of multi-party RLHF and traditional single-party RLHF. Furthermore, we consider a reward-free setting, where each individual's preference is no longer consistent with a reward model, and give pessimistic variants of the von Neumann Winner based on offline preference data. Taken together, our work showcases the advantage of multi-party RLHF but also highlights its more demanding statistical complexity.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Distortion of AI Alignment: Does Preference Optimization Optimize for Preferences?
NLHF achieves the minimax-optimal worst-case average-utility distortion (1/2+o(1))β, while RLHF and DPO can suffer distortion up to e^{Ω(β)} or unbounded under certain comparison sampling.
-
Theoretical Tensions in RLHF: Reconciling Empirical Success with Inconsistencies in Social Choice Theory
RLHF reward modeling satisfies pairwise majority and Condorcet consistency when each response pair is labeled once, because the maximum likelihood ranking then matches the Copeland rule.
-
Game Theory Meets Large Language Models: A Systematic Survey with Taxonomy and New Frontiers
A taxonomy-based survey of bidirectional game theory and LLM research, spanning evaluation, alignment, economic competition, and LLM-driven game solving.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.