Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
139 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Value-Incentivized Preference Optimization: A Unified Approach to Online and Offline RLHF (2405.19320v3)

Published 29 May 2024 in cs.LG, cs.AI, and stat.ML

Abstract: Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has demonstrated great promise in aligning LLMs with human preference. Depending on the availability of preference data, both online and offline RLHF are active areas of investigation. A key bottleneck is understanding how to incorporate uncertainty estimation in the reward function learned from the preference data for RLHF, regardless of how the preference data is collected. While the principles of optimism or pessimism under uncertainty are well-established in standard reinforcement learning (RL), a practically-implementable and theoretically-grounded form amenable to LLMs is not yet available, as standard techniques for constructing confidence intervals become intractable under arbitrary policy parameterizations. In this paper, we introduce a unified approach to online and offline RLHF -- value-incentivized preference optimization (VPO) -- which regularizes the maximum-likelihood estimate of the reward function with the corresponding value function, modulated by a $\textit{sign}$ to indicate whether the optimism or pessimism is chosen. VPO also directly optimizes the policy with implicit reward modeling, and therefore shares a simpler RLHF pipeline similar to direct preference optimization. Theoretical guarantees of VPO are provided for both online and offline settings, matching the rates of their standard RL counterparts. Moreover, experiments on text summarization and dialog verify the practicality and effectiveness of VPO.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (47)
  1. Improved algorithms for linear stochastic bandits. Advances in neural information processing systems, 24.
  2. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403.
  3. A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human preferences. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 4447–4455. PMLR.
  4. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39(3/4):324–345.
  5. Fast global convergence of natural policy gradient methods with entropy regularization. Operations Research, 70(4):2563–2578.
  6. Boltzmann exploration done right. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30.
  7. Dataset reset policy optimization for RLHF. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08495.
  8. H. chi, jeff dean, jacob devlin, adam roberts, denny zhou, quoc v. le, and jason wei. 2022. scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416.
  9. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457.
  10. KTO: Model alignment as prospect theoretic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01306.
  11. Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10835–10866. PMLR.
  12. A survey of uncertainty in deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03342.
  13. Direct language model alignment from online ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04792.
  14. Reward-biased maximum likelihood estimation for linear stochastic bandits. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 7874–7882.
  15. Is Q-learning provably efficient? Advances in neural information processing systems, 31.
  16. The power of exploiter: Provable multi-agent rl in large state spaces. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10251–10279. PMLR.
  17. Conservative q-learning for offline reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:1179–1191.
  18. A new family of optimal adaptive controllers for markov chains. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 27(1):137–146.
  19. Asymptotically efficient adaptive allocation rules. Advances in applied mathematics, 6(1):4–22.
  20. Bandit algorithms. Cambridge University Press.
  21. Rlaif: Scaling reinforcement learning from human feedback with ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00267.
  22. Exploration through reward biasing: Reward-biased maximum likelihood estimation for stochastic multi-armed bandits. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6248–6258. PMLR.
  23. Maximize to explore: One objective function fusing estimation, planning, and exploration. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.
  24. Reward biased maximum likelihood estimation for reinforcement learning. In Learning for Dynamics and Control, pages 815–827. PMLR.
  25. Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1928–1937. PMLR.
  26. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. nature, 518(7540):529–533.
  27. Nash learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00886.
  28. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27730–27744.
  29. Smaug: Fixing failure modes of preference optimisation with dpo-positive. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13228.
  30. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.
  31. Bridging offline reinforcement learning and imitation learning: A tale of pessimism. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 68(12):8156–8196.
  32. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347.
  33. Pessimistic Q-learning for offline reinforcement learning: Towards optimal sample complexity. In International conference on machine learning, pages 19967–20025. PMLR.
  34. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:3008–3021.
  35. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press.
  36. A minimaximalist approach to reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04056.
  37. Generalized preference optimization: A unified approach to offline alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05749.
  38. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288.
  39. Pessimistic model-based offline reinforcement learning under partial coverage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.06226.
  40. On the optimality of batch policy optimization algorithms. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11362–11371. PMLR.
  41. Gibbs sampling from human feedback: A provable KL-constrained framework for RLHF. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11456.
  42. Iterative reasoning preference optimization. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2404.
  43. Provable offline preference-based reinforcement learning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations.
  44. Zhang, T. (2023). Mathematical analysis of machine learning algorithms. Cambridge University Press.
  45. Slic-hf: Sequence likelihood calibration with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10425.
  46. Principled reinforcement learning with human feedback from pairwise or k-wise comparisons. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 43037–43067. PMLR.
  47. Fine-tuning language models from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08593.
Citations (13)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

  • The paper introduces the VPO framework that integrates value-based regularization to implicitly manage uncertainty in RLHF settings.
  • It unifies online iterative data collection with offline single-pass optimization, achieving optimal regret bounds and performance improvements.
  • Empirical results on language tasks demonstrate VPO's superior efficiency and robustness in aligning LLMs with human preferences.

Value-Incentivized Preference Optimization for RLHF

Introduction

The paper "Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF)" presents an approach to refine LLMs by aligning their outputs with human preferences. The novelty lies in a technique termed Value-Incentivized Preference Optimization (VPO), which regularizes the reward function derived from preference data with accompanying value functions. This method unifies both online and offline RLHF and offers theoretical and practical advancements.

Key Contributions

  1. Integration of Optimism/Pessimism: The central innovation, VPO, directly integrates the optimism/pessimism principles for handling uncertainty. Instead of the traditional need for explicit uncertainty estimation, VPO modulates the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of the reward function by employing a value-based regularization term. This allows for implicit estimation of uncertainty in a computationally feasible manner, a first for LLMs.
  2. Combining Online and Offline RLHF: VPO effectively bridges online and offline RLHF. For the online setting, its strategy involves iteratively collecting new preference data and refining the reward and policy models iteratively. In the offline setting, it employs a single optimization pass over a pre-collected dataset, thus avoiding overfitting.
  3. Theoretical Guarantees: The paper offers robust theoretical guarantees for VPO, showcasing regret bounds in online settings comparable to those seen in traditional contextual bandit problems. Similarly, for offline scenarios, VPO's performance converges optimally, aligning with state-of-the-art benchmarks under linear function approximation.

Implications and Numerical Results

The practical implications of VPO are significant:

  • Efficiency in Training Pipelines: By circumventing the need for confidence interval constructions in arbitrarily parameterized policies, VPO simplifies the RLHF pipeline. This makes it an attractive option for real-world applications where resource constraints are critical.
  • Robust Performance: Empirical results reinforce VPO's effectiveness. On tasks like text summarization and dialog generation, VPO consistently outperformed baselines, both in terms of reward calibration and policy refinement.

Detailed Analysis

Online RLHF

The iterative procedure for online VPO involves three primary steps per iteration:

  1. Sampling and Data Generation: New preference data is sampled using the current policy.
  2. Reward Update: The reward function is updated by minimizing a regularized log-likelihood function, which includes an incentivizing term for the value (optimistic for online settings).
  3. Policy Update: The policy is fine-tuned to maximize the reward function.

The paper's theoretical analysis demonstrates that online VPO achieves cumulative regret bounds of O~(T)\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{T}), aligning it closely with standard approaches in contextual bandits.

Offline RLHF

For offline settings, VPO operates in a single-shot manner using a pre-collected dataset:

  1. Reward Model Learning: The reward model is refined using a dataset by integrating a term that discourages over-optimization.
  2. Optimal Policy Update: The learned reward function is then employed to update the policy optimally.

Theoretical guarantees show VPO achieving sub-optimality gap rates of O~(1/N)\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(1/\sqrt{N}), where NN is the dataset size, underlining its efficacy in offline RLHF tasks.

Experimental Validation

Results from synthetic multi-armed bandit setups and real-world LLM tasks like ARC-Challenge and TL;DR showcase VPO's superior performance. Notably:

  • Online Settings:

VPO maintained superior performance over multiple iterations, with sustained improvements over SFT.

  • Offline Settings:

VPO avoided over-optimization pitfalls inherent in other methods, maintaining high performance across different model scales (e.g., Llama2, Flan-T5).

Future Directions

This work opens several avenues for further research:

  1. Adaptive Regularization: Investigating adaptive strategies for choosing the regularization coefficient α\alpha could lead to even more efficient training procedures.
  2. Extension to Broader RL Frameworks: The principles established here for VPO could be extended to other RL contexts, potentially redefining strategies for uncertainty-based optimization without explicit estimations.

Conclusion

Value-Incentivized Preference Optimization (VPO) addresses a critical challenge in RLHF by integrating uncertainty management directly into the reward function optimization process. The paper provides both theoretical assurances and practical validation, making VPO a promising addition to RLHF methodologies for LLMs. This contributes to advancing efficient and robust alignment of LLMs with human preferences.