Bayesian Reward Models for LLM Alignment

Adam X. Yang, Maxime Robeyns, Thomas Coste, Zhengyan Shi, Jun Wang +2 more
2/20/2024
cs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

To ensure that large language model (LLM) responses are helpful and non-toxic, a reward model trained on human preference data is usually used. LLM responses with high rewards are then selected through best-of-$n$ (BoN) sampling or the LLM is further optimized to produce responses with high rewards through reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). However, these processes are susceptible to reward overoptimization or `hacking', where responses receive high rewards due to imperfections in the reward model rather than true preference, particularly as prompts or responses deviate from the training data. To address these challenges, we propose to train a Bayesian reward model, which signals higher uncertainty further from the training data distribution. We trained Bayesian reward models using Laplace approximation on LoRA weights, and found that the resulting uncertainty estimates can effectively mitigate reward overoptimization in BoN sampling.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Cite this paper

@article{yang2024bayesian,
  title  = {Bayesian Reward Models for LLM Alignment},
  author = {Adam X. Yang and Maxime Robeyns and Thomas Coste and Zhengyan Shi and Jun Wang and Haitham Bou-Ammar and Laurence Aitchison},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2402.13210},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13210v2}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2402.13210.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2402.13210)

Discussion