REVIEW 2 cited by
Improving Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback Using Contrastive Rewards
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
Improving Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback Using Contrastive Rewards
read the original abstract
Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is the mainstream paradigm used to align large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Yet existing RLHF heavily relies on accurate and informative reward models, which are vulnerable and sensitive to noise from various sources, e.g. human labeling errors, making the pipeline fragile. In this work, we improve the effectiveness of the reward model by introducing a penalty term on the reward, named as \textit{contrastive rewards}. %Contrastive rewards Our approach involves two steps: (1) an offline sampling step to obtain responses to prompts that serve as baseline calculation and (2) a contrastive reward calculated using the baseline responses and used in the Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) step. We show that contrastive rewards enable the LLM to penalize reward uncertainty, improve robustness, encourage improvement over baselines, calibrate according to task difficulty, and reduce variance in PPO. We show empirically contrastive rewards can improve RLHF substantially, evaluated by both GPTs and humans, and our method consistently outperforms strong baselines.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Reward Shaping for (Inference-Time) Alignment: A Stackelberg Game Perspective
The optimal reward for KL-regularized LLM alignment is a threshold function—reward B above a prompt-dependent cutoff, 0 below—which can be estimated from base-model samples and integrated into decoding-time alignment.
-
A Survey of Scaling in Large Language Model Reasoning
A survey categorizing scaling in LLM reasoning across input size, steps, rounds, training, and future directions, noting that scaling can negatively affect performance.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.