PreprintCited by 467Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsNatural Language Processing TechniquesTopic Modeling

RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedback

Open access
Lee, Harrison, Phatale, Samrat, Mansoor, Hassan, Mesnard, Thomas, Ferret, Johan, Lu, Kellie, Bishop, Colton, Hall, Ethan +3 more·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has proven effective in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences, but gathering high-quality preference labels is expensive. RL from AI Feedback (RLAIF), introduced in Bai et al., offers a promising alternative that trains the reward model (RM) on preferences generated by an off-the-shelf LLM. Across the tasks of summarization, helpful dialogue generation, and harmless dialogue generation, we show that RLAIF achieves comparable performance to RLHF. Furthermore, we take a step towards "self-improvement" by demonstrating that RLAIF can outperform a supervised fine-tuned baseline even when the AI labeler is the same size as the policy, or even the exact same checkpoint as the initial policy. Finally, we introduce direct-RLAIF (d-RLAIF) - a technique that circumvents RM training by obtaining rewards directly from an off-the-shelf LLM during RL, which achieves superior performance to canonical RLAIF. Our results suggest that RLAIF can achieve performance on-par with using human feedback, offering a potential solution to the scalability limitations of RLHF.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2309.00267

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The finding that increasing SC samplings has no significant impact on the alignment labeling tasks is consistent with Lee et al. (2023).

    “This finding is consistent with Table 13 in Lee et al. (2023).”

    From Improving Multi-Agent Debate with Sparse Communication Topology (2024) · cites this paper as Lee et al. (2023)

    The self-consistency experiment reports that using 4 versus 16 samples did not affect AI labeler alignment, supporting the comparison for summarization. It does not establish the result across alignment-labeling tasks: self-consistency reduced alignment relative to the no-self-consistency baseline. The cited Table 13 concerns length-controlled win rates, not self-consistency sampling; the relevant results are discussed in the self-consistency experiment and Table 14 (page unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • RLAIF has technical challenges such as hallucinations when using a pre-trained LLM in place of a human annotator in preference ranking.

    “there are several technical challenges to RLAIF, such as ‘hallucinations’—the phenomenon where factually incorrect or unfounded outputs are generated—that occur when using a pre-trained LLM in place of a human annotator in preference ranking (Lee et al., 2023).”

    From Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2023

    Section 3.2 says the paper uses an LLM to label preferences, and the discussion of Table 19 describes an inaccurate AI-labeler rationale that mistakenly attributes a statement to a summary. This supports a narrower concern about errors in LLM preference ranking, but the paper does not establish hallucinations as a general consequence of replacing human annotators. Section 5 instead describes examples in which RLHF summaries hallucinated and RLAIF summaries did not. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • RLHF seems to be an important tool for improving the human-likeness of LLM outputs.

    “RLHF seems to be an important tool for improving the human-likeness of LLM outputs (Lee et al., 2023).”

    From Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2023

    The Introduction calls RLHF effective for aligning language models with human preferences, and the human-evaluation results show that people preferred RLHF outputs over supervised-fine-tuned outputs on the tested tasks. That supports improved human-preferred output quality, but the paper does not assess whether those outputs are more human-like. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The LLMs trained by Lee et al. (2023) achieved near-human performance in summarization tasks with RLAIF without any human feedback.

    “The LLMs trained in the work by Lee et al. (2023) achieved near-human performance in summarization tasks with RLAIF without any human feedback.”

    From Verbosity Bias in Preference Labeling by Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Lee et al. (2023)

    Section 4.1 reports that RLAIF and RLHF summarization models were preferred over the supervised baseline 71% and 73% of the time, respectively, and says RLAIF does not depend on human annotation for preference labels. This supports performance comparable to a human-feedback-trained model, not performance comparable to human summarizers. The summarization models also began with supervised fine-tuning on Reddit TL;DR data (Appendix F), so “without any human feedback” is too broad if it refers to the entire training process. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The study used AI Labeler Alignment (Lee et al., 2023) to measure the accuracy of MAD labeling with respect to human annotation.

    “We use AI Labeler Alignment (Lee et al., 2023) to measure the accuracy of MAD labeling with respect to the human annotation.”

    From Improving Multi-Agent Debate with Sparse Communication Topology (2024) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2023

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

  • Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translation

    Wu, Y., Schuster, M., Chen, Z., Le, Q. V., Norouzi, M., Macherey, W., Krikun, M., Cao, Y., Gao, Q., Macherey, K., et al. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.08144 · Cited by 5,319 · cited 1× · see citing works

    “While initial applications of RL on tasks such as translation (Wu et al., 2016; 2018) and summarization (Gao et al., 2019; Wu & Hu, 2018) used automatic evaluation metrics as rewards, such simplified formulations of rewards did not fully align with human notions of quality.”
    Method
  • Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models

    Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · Cited by 1,749 · cited 1× · see citing works

    “Alignment decreases by 4% when substituting PaLM 2 L with PaLM 2 S, and decreases another 11% when us-ing PaLM 2 XS - a trend consistent with scaling behaviors observed in other work (Kaplan et al., 2020).”
    Result

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schul- man, J., and Mané, D. Concrete problems in ai safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565, 2016. · arXiv
  2. Bai, Y., Jones, A., Ndousse, K., Askell, A., Chen, A., Das- Sarma, N., Drain, D., Fort, S., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., et al. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with rein- forcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862, 2022a. · arXiv
  3. Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877-1901, 2020.
  4. Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311, 2022. · arXiv
  5. Christiano, P. F., Leike, J., Brown, T., Martic, M., Legg, S., and Amodei, D. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 30, 2017.
  6. Ding, B., Qin, C., Liu, L., Chia, Y. K., Li, B., Joty, S., and Bing, L. Is GPT-3 a good data annotator? In Pro- ceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 11173-11195, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/ 2023.acl-long.626. URL https://aclanthology. org/2023.acl-long.626. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Dong, H., Xiong, W., Goyal, D., Zhang, Y., Chow, W., Pan, R., Diao, S., Zhang, J., SHUM, K., and Zhang, T. RAFT: Reward ranked finetuning for generative founda- tion model alignment. Transactions on Machine Learn- ing Research, 2023. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=m7p5O7zblY.
  8. Ethayarajh, K., Choi, Y., and Swayamdipta, S. Under- standing dataset difficulty with V-usable information. In Chaudhuri, K., Jegelka, S., Song, L., Szepesvari, C., Niu, G., and Sabato, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 5988-6008. PMLR, 17-23 Jul 2022.
  9. Everitt, T. and Hutter, M. Avoiding wireheading with value reinforcement learning. In Artificial General Intel- ligence: 9th International Conference, AGI 2016, New York, NY, USA, July 16-19, 2016, Proceedings 9, pp. 12- 22. Springer, 2016.
  10. Fan, A., Lewis, M., and Dauphin, Y. Hierarchical neu- ral story generation. In Proceedings of the 56th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 889-898, Mel- bourne, Australia, July 2018. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/P18-1082. URL https://aclanthology.org/P18-1082. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Feng, S. Y., Gangal, V., Wei, J., Chandar, S., Vosoughi, S., Mitamura, T., and Hovy, E. A survey of data augmenta- tion approaches for NLP. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pp. 968-988, Online, August 2021. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl. · DOI
  12. Fox, R., Pakman, A., and Tishby, N. Taming the noise in reinforcement learning via soft updates. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.08562, 2015. · arXiv
  13. Gao, Y., Meyer, C. M., Mesgar, M., and Gurevych, I. Reward learning for efficient reinforcement learning in extractive document summarisation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.12894, 2019. · arXiv
  14. Geist, M., Scherrer, B., and Pietquin, O. A theory of regu- larized markov decision processes. In International Con- ference on Machine Learning, pp. 2160-2169. PMLR, 2019.
  15. Gilardi, F., Alizadeh, M., and Kubli, M. Chatgpt outper- forms crowd-workers for text-annotation tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15056, 2023. · arXiv
  16. Glaese, A., McAleese, N., Trebacz, M., Aslanides, J., Firoiu, V., Ewalds, T., Rauh, M., Weidinger, L., Chadwick, M., Thacker, P., et al. Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14375, 2022. · arXiv
  17. Howard, R. A. Dynamic programming and markov pro- cesses. John Wiley, 1960.
  18. Huang, J., Gu, S. S., Hou, L., Wu, Y., Wang, X., Yu, H., and Han, J. Large language models can self-improve. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11610, 2022. · arXiv
  19. Jaques, N., Gu, S., Bahdanau, D., Hernández-Lobato, J. M., Turner, R. E., and Eck, D. Sequence tutor: Conserva- tive fine-tuning of sequence generation models with kl- control. In International Conference on Machine Learn- ing, pp. 1645-1654. PMLR, 2017.
  20. Kendall, M. G. and Smith, B. B. The Problem of m Rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statis- tics, 10(3):275 -287, 1939. doi: 10.1214/aoms/ 1177732186. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/ aoms/1177732186. · DOI
  21. Kwon, M., Xie, S. M., Bullard, K., and Sadigh, D. Reward design with language models. In The Eleventh Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
  22. Lai, V. D., Van Nguyen, C., Ngo, N. T., Nguyen, T., Der- noncourt, F., Rossi, R. A., and Nguyen, T. H. Okapi: Instruction-tuned large language models in multiple lan- guages with reinforcement learning from human feed- back. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.16039, 2023. · arXiv
  23. Liu, Y., Han, T., Ma, S., Zhang, J., Yang, Y., Tian, J., He, H., Li, A., He, M., Liu, Z., et al. Summary of chatgpt/gpt-4 research and perspective towards the future of large lan- guage models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01852, 2023. · arXiv
  24. Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., et al. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17651, 2023. · arXiv
  25. Meng, Y., Michalski, M., Huang, J., Zhang, Y., Abdelzaher, T., and Han, J. Tuning language models as training data generators for augmentation-enhanced few-shot learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 24457-24477. PMLR, 2023.
  26. Min, S., Lyu, X., Holtzman, A., Artetxe, M., Lewis, M., Hajishirzi, H., and Zettlemoyer, L. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 11048- 11064, 2022.
  27. Nakano, R., Hilton, J., Balaji, S., Wu, J., Ouyang, L., Kim, C., Hesse, C., Jain, S., Kosaraju, V., Saunders, W., et al. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with hu- man feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09332, 2021. · arXiv
  28. Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744, 2022.
  29. Pezeshkpour, P. and Hruschka, E. Large language mod- els sensitivity to the order of options in multiple-choice questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11483, 2023. · arXiv
  30. Rafailov, R., Sharma, A., Mitchell, E., Manning, C. D., Er- mon, S., and Finn, C. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  31. Roit, P., Ferret, J., Shani, L., Aharoni, R., Cideron, G., Dadashi, R., Geist, M., Girgin, S., Hussenot, L., Keller, O., et al. Factually consistent summarization via re- inforcement learning with textual entailment feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00186, 2023. · arXiv
  32. Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., and Klimov, O. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017. · arXiv
  33. Shazeer, N. and Stern, M. Adafactor: Adaptive learning rates with sublinear memory cost. CoRR, abs/1804.04235, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/1804.04235. · arXiv
  34. Stiennon, N., Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Ziegler, D., Lowe, R., Voss, C., Radford, A., Amodei, D., and Christiano, P. F. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 3008-3021, 2020.
  35. Sutton, R. S., McAllester, D., Singh, S., and Mansour, Y. Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 12, 1999.
  36. Thoppilan, R., De Freitas, D., Hall, J., Shazeer, N., Kul- shreshtha, A., Cheng, H.-T., Jin, A., Bos, T., Baker, L., Du, Y., et al. Lamda: Language models for dialog appli- cations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239, 2022. · arXiv
  37. Wang, B., Min, S., Deng, X., Shen, J., Wu, Y., Zettlemoyer, L., and Sun, H. Towards understanding chain-of-thought prompting: An empirical study of what matters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10001, 2022a. · arXiv
  38. Wang, P., Li, L., Chen, L., Zhu, D., Lin, B., Cao, Y., Liu, Q., Liu, T., and Sui, Z. Large language models are not fair evaluators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17926, 2023. · arXiv
  39. Wang, S., Liu, Y., Xu, Y., Zhu, C., and Zeng, M. Want to reduce labeling cost? gpt-3 can help. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pp. 4195-4205, 2021a.
  40. Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q. V., Chi, E. H., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., and Zhou, D. Self- consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in lan- guage models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022b.
  41. Wang, Z., Yu, A. W., Firat, O., and Cao, Y. To- wards zero-label language learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.09193, 2021b. · arXiv
  42. Wei, J., Bosma, M., Zhao, V., Guu, K., Yu, A. W., Lester, B., Du, N., Dai, A. M., and Le, Q. V. Finetuned lan- guage models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
  43. Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., Zhou, D., et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 24824-24837, 2022.
  44. Wu, L., Tian, F., Qin, T., Lai, J., and Liu, T.-Y. A study of reinforcement learning for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 3612-3621, 2018.
  45. Wu, Y. and Hu, B. Learning to extract coherent summary via deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 5602, 2018.
  46. Ziegler, D. M., Stiennon, N., Wu, J., Brown, T. B., Radford, A., Amodei, D., Christiano, P., and Irving, G. Fine-tuning language models from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08593, 2019. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, H., Phatale, S., Mansoor, H., Mesnard, T., Ferret, J., Lu, K., Bishop, C., Hall, E., Carbune, V., Rastogi, A., & Prakash, S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386437475
Cited by
87
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 7
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
reinforcement learning from human feedback, reward modeling, large language models, human development, dialogue generation, summarization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review