CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 13Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

ODIN: Disentangled Reward Mitigates Hacking in RLHF

Open access
Chen, Lichang, Zhu, Chen, Soselia, Davit, Chen, Jiuhai, Zhou, Tianyi, Goldstein, Tom, Huang, Heng, Shoeybi, Mohammad +1 more·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2402.07319arXiv 2402.07319
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this work, we study the issue of reward hacking on the response length, a challenge emerging in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) on LLMs. A well-formatted, verbose but less helpful response from the LLMs can often deceive LLMs or even human evaluators to achieve high scores. The same issue also holds for some reward models in RL. To address the challenges in both training and evaluation, we establish a more reliable evaluation protocol for comparing different training configurations, which inspects the trade-off between LLM evaluation score and response length obtained by varying training hyperparameters. Based on this evaluation, we conduct large-scale studies, where the results shed insights into the efficacy of hyperparameters and tricks used in RL on mitigating length bias. We further propose to improve the reward model by jointly training two linear heads on shared feature representations to predict the rewards, one trained to correlate with length, and the other trained to decorrelate with length and therefore focus more on the actual content. We then discard the length head in RL to prevent reward hacking on length. Experiments demonstrate that our approach almost eliminates the reward correlation with length, and improves the obtained policy by a significant margin.

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.2402.07319

Cites

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?

  • More sophisticated approaches leverage the evaluative capabilities of LLMs to score individual instruction instances, selectively retaining those with higher quality scores.

    “More sophisticated approaches leverage the evaluative capabilities of LLMs to score individual instruction instances, selectively retaining those with higher quality scores [190].”

    From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [190]

    The Models and Training passage describes using GPT-4 to rate individual responses to prompts. It does not describe scoring instruction instances or selectively retaining those with higher scores; the scores are used to evaluate model responses. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. A. Askell, Y. Bai, A. Chen, D. Drain, D. Ganguli, T. Henighan, A. Jones, N. Joseph, B. Mann, N. DasSarma, et al. A general language assistant as a laboratory for alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00861, 2021. · arXiv
  2. Y. Bai, S. Kadavath, S. Kundu, A. Askell, J. Kernion, A. Jones, A. Chen, A. Goldie, A. Mirho- seini, C. McKinnon, et al. Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073, 2022. · arXiv
  3. C. Burns, P. Izmailov, J. H. Kirchner, B. Baker, L. Gao, L. Aschenbrenner, Y. Chen, A. Ecoffet, M. Joglekar, J. Leike, et al. Weak-to-strong generalization: Eliciting strong capabilities with weak supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09390, 2023. · arXiv
  4. D. Dua, Y. Wang, P. Dasigi, G. Stanovsky, S. Singh, and M. Gardner. DROP: A reading comprehension benchmark requiring discrete reasoning over paragraphs. In Proc. of NAACL, 2019.
  5. Y. Dubois, X. Li, R. Taori, T. Zhang, I. Gulrajani, J. Ba, C. Guestrin, P. Liang, and T. B. Hashimoto. Alpacafarm: A simulation framework for methods that learn from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14387, 2023. · arXiv
  6. J. Eisenstein, C. Nagpal, A. Agarwal, A. Beirami, A. D'Amour, D. Dvijotham, A. Fisch, K. Heller, S. Pfohl, D. Ramachandran, et al. Helping or herding? reward model ensembles mitigate but do not eliminate reward hacking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09244, 2023. · arXiv
  7. L. Engstrom, A. Ilyas, S. Santurkar, D. Tsipras, F. Janoos, L. Rudolph, and A. Madry. Implementation matters in deep policy gradients: A case study on ppo and trpo. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.12729, 2020. · arXiv
  8. L. Gao, J. Schulman, and J. Hilton. Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10835-10866. PMLR, 2023.
  9. C. Gulcehre, T. L. Paine, S. Srinivasan, K. Konyushkova, L. Weerts, A. Sharma, A. Siddhant, A. Ahern, M. Wang, C. Gu, et al. Reinforced self-training (rest) for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08998, 2023. · arXiv
  10. D. Hendrycks, C. Burns, S. Basart, A. Zou, M. Mazeika, D. Song, and J. Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020. · arXiv
  11. D. Hendrycks, N. Carlini, J. Schulman, and J. Steinhardt. Unsolved problems in ml safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13916, 2021. · arXiv
  12. H. Lee, S. Phatale, H. Mansoor, K. Lu, T. Mesnard, C. Bishop, V. Carbune, and A. Rastogi. Rlaif: Scaling reinforcement learning from human feedback with ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00267, 2023. · arXiv
  13. J. Liu, Y. Zhu, K. Xiao, Q. Fu, X. Han, W. Yang, and D. Ye. Rltf: Reinforcement learning from unit test feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04349, 2023. · arXiv
  14. T. Liu, Y. Zhao, R. Joshi, M. Khalman, M. Saleh, P. J. Liu, and J. Liu. Statistical rejection sampling improves preference optimization. ICLR, 2024.
  15. F. Locatello, S. Bauer, M. Lucic, G. Raetsch, S. Gelly, B. Schölkopf, and O. Bachem. Challenging common assumptions in the unsupervised learning of disentangled representations. In international conference on machine learning, pages 4114-4124. PMLR, 2019.
  16. V. Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves, M. Ried- miller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski, et al. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. nature, 518(7540):529-533, 2015.
  17. R. Nakano, J. Hilton, S. Balaji, J. Wu, L. Ouyang, C. Kim, C. Hesse, S. Jain, V. Kosaraju, W. Saunders, et al. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09332, 2021. · arXiv
  18. L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744, 2022.
  19. A. Rame, G. Couairon, M. Shukor, C. Dancette, J.-B. Gaya, L. Soulier, and M. Cord. Rewarded soups: towards pareto-optimal alignment by interpolating weights fine-tuned on diverse rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04488, 2023. · arXiv
  20. A. Ramé, N. Vieillard, L. Hussenot, R. Dadashi, G. Cideron, O. Bachem, and J. Ferret. Warm: On the benefits of weight averaged reward models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12187, 2024. · arXiv
  21. T. Salimans and D. P. Kingma. Weight normalization: A simple reparameterization to accelerate training of deep neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016.
  22. J. Schulman, P. Moritz, S. Levine, M. Jordan, and P. Abbeel. High-dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02438, 2015. · arXiv
  23. J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017. · arXiv
  24. W. Shen, R. Zheng, W. Zhan, J. Zhao, S. Dou, T. Gui, Q. Zhang, and X.-J. Huang. Loose lips sink ships: Mitigating length bias in reinforcement learning from human feedback. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2859-2873, 2023.
  25. P. Sountsov and S. Sarawagi. Length bias in encoder decoder models and a case for global con- ditioning. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1516-1525, 2016.
  26. N. Stiennon, L. Ouyang, J. Wu, D. Ziegler, R. Lowe, C. Voss, A. Radford, D. Amodei, and P. F. Christiano. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:3008-3021, 2020.
  27. M. Suzgun, N. Scales, N. Schärli, S. Gehrmann, Y. Tay, H. W. Chung, A. Chowdhery, Q. V. Le, E. H. Chi, D. Zhou, , and J. Wei. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261, 2022. · arXiv
  28. H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y. Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. · arXiv
  29. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  30. B. Wang, R. Zheng, L. Chen, Y. Liu, S. Dou, C. Huang, W. Shen, S. Jin, E. Zhou, C. Shi, et al. Secrets of rlhf in large language models part ii: Reward modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06080, 2024. · arXiv
  31. P. Wang, L. Li, L. Chen, D. Zhu, B. Lin, Y. Cao, Q. Liu, T. Liu, and Z. Sui. Large language models are not fair evaluators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17926, 2023a. · arXiv
  32. Y. Wang, Y. Kordi, S. Mishra, A. Liu, N. A. Smith, D. Khashabi, and H. Hajishirzi. Self-instruct: Aligning language model with self generated instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10560, 2022. · arXiv
  33. Y. Wang, H. Ivison, P. Dasigi, J. Hessel, T. Khot, K. R. Chandu, D. Wadden, K. MacMillan, N. A. Smith, I. Beltagy, et al. How far can camels go? exploring the state of instruction tuning on open resources. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04751, 2023b. · arXiv
  34. T. Wolf, L. Debut, V. Sanh, J. Chaumond, C. Delangue, A. Moi, P. Cistac, T. Rault, R. Louf, M. Fun- towicz, J. Davison, S. Shleifer, P. von Platen, C. Ma, Y. Jernite, J. Plu, C. Xu, T. L. Scao, S. Gugger, M. Drame, Q. Lhoest, and A. M. Rush. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online, Oct. 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.emnlp-demos.
  35. Z. Wu, Y. Hu, W. Shi, N. Dziri, A. Suhr, P. Ammanabrolu, N. A. Smith, M. Ostendorf, and H. Ha- jishirzi. Fine-grained human feedback gives better rewards for language model training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01693, 2023. · arXiv
  36. Z. Yao, R. Y. Aminabadi, O. Ruwase, S. Rajbhandari, X. Wu, A. A. Awan, J. Rasley, M. Zhang, C. Li, C. Holmes, et al. Deepspeed-chat: Easy, fast and affordable rlhf training of chatgpt-like models at all scales. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01320, 2023. · arXiv
  37. Z. Zeng, J. Yu, T. Gao, Y. Meng, T. Goyal, and D. Chen. Evaluating large language models at evaluating instruction following. In NeurIPS 2023 Workshop on Instruction Tuning and Instruction Following, 2023.
  38. L. Zheng, W.-L. Chiang, Y. Sheng, S. Zhuang, Z. Wu, Y. Zhuang, Z. Lin, Z. Li, D. Li, E. Xing, et al. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05685, 2023a. · arXiv
  39. R. Zheng, S. Dou, S. Gao, Y. Hua, W. Shen, B. Wang, Y. Liu, S. Jin, Q. Liu, Y. Zhou, et al. Secrets of rlhf in large language models part i: Ppo. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04964, 2023b. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, L., Zhu, C., Soselia, D., Chen, J., Zhou, T., Goldstein, T., Huang, H., Shoeybi, M., & Catanzaro, B.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2402.07319
arXiv
2402.07319
OpenAlex
W4391800970
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
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 › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
reward hacking, response length, reinforcement learning from human feedback, large language models, reward models, length bias, shared feature representation

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