ODIN: Disentangled Reward Mitigates Hacking in RLHF
By Lichang Chen, Chen Zhu, Davit Soselia, Jiuhai Chen, Tianyi Zhou, Tom Goldstein, Heng Huang, Mohammad Shoeybi, Bryan Catanzaro. 2024
129 citations recorded by the source corpus.
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.
Subfields: Surgery, Alignment & RLHF
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Alignment & RLHF
Citations in the corpus
- Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators (2024, background): “For example Shen et al. (2023); Chen et al. (2024) try to train a reward model that is uncorrelated to length by making it predict the length at the same time as the reward and disentangle the two.”
- Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Experts (2024, background): “…human-interpretable explanations, making it subject to the widely observed phenomenon of reward hacking [Skalse et al., 2022; Singhal et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2024], where the aligned LLMs generate high-reward responses (rated by the RM) that do not align with actual human preferences [Gao et…”
- SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward (2024, unknown): “The classical RLHF pipeline typically comprises three phases: supervised fine-tuning [96, 71, 32, 21, 44, 25, 77, 15, 81], reward model training [31, 56, 16, 52, 35, 46], and policy optimization [65, 4].”