Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) are compared in their ability to align large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. The study finds that both RLHF and RLAIF result in similar improvements in the task of summarization. Human evaluators prefer generations from both approaches over a baseline supervised fine-tuned model in about 70% of cases. When asked to rate RLAIF vs. RLHF summaries, humans show equal preference for both. However, there are some observed differences between the two approaches. RLAIF appears less likely to produce hallucinations, while RLHF sometimes produces less coherent or grammatical summaries. Overall, both approaches produce high-quality summaries that are relatively similar. In related work, LLMs have shown impressive performance across various NLP tasks and RL has been effective for optimization. RL from human feedback has been used to align LLMs with human preferences and has been successfully applied to summarization, instruction following, dialogue and question answering tasks. LLMs have also been used for data generation and augmentation purposes. Recent work introduced the idea of RL from AI feedback (RLAIF), which combines LLM-labeled preferences with human-labeled preferences to optimize for helpfulness and harmlessness objectives. The experiments conducted in this study use the filtered Reddit TL;DR dataset curated by OpenAI which contains posts from Reddit alongside summaries written by the original authors. A human preference dataset was also curated from this dataset using pairwise comparisons of candidate summaries generated by different policies. Overall, this study provides insights into the effectiveness of RLHF and RLAIF for aligning LLMs with human preferences in the task of summarization. Both approaches yield high-quality summaries preferred by humans with some differences in terms of hallucinations and coherence/grammar issues. These findings suggest that RLAIF can offer a scalable solution to the limitations of RLHF.
- - Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) compared for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences
- - RLHF and RLAIF both result in similar improvements in summarization task
- - Human evaluators prefer generations from both approaches over a baseline supervised fine-tuned model in about 70% of cases
- - Humans show equal preference for RLAIF vs. RLHF summaries when rated
- - RLAIF appears less likely to produce hallucinations compared to RLHF
- - RLHF sometimes produces less coherent or grammatical summaries compared to RLAIF
- - LLMs have shown impressive performance across various NLP tasks
- - RL has been effective for optimization in related work
- - RL from human feedback used successfully for aligning LLMs with human preferences in summarization, instruction following, dialogue, and question answering tasks
- - LLMs used for data generation and augmentation purposes
- - Experiments conducted using the filtered Reddit TL;DR dataset curated by OpenAI
- - Human preference dataset curated using pairwise comparisons of candidate summaries generated by different policies
- - Both RLHF and RLAIF yield high-quality summaries preferred by humans with some differences in hallucinations and coherence/grammar issues
- - RLAIF can offer a scalable solution to the limitations of RLHF
- Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) are two different ways of teaching computers to improve their language skills.
- Both RLHF and RLAIF help computers get better at summarizing information.
- When people compared summaries created by RLHF and RLAIF, they liked both approaches more than a regular computer program that was trained in a different way in about 70% of cases.
- People had equal preference for summaries made by RLAIF and RLHF when they were asked to rate them.
- RLAIF is less likely to create false or incorrect information compared to RLHF.
- Sometimes, RLHF makes summaries that are not as clear or correct as the ones made by RLAIF.
- Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in many different language tasks.
- Reinforcement learning (RL) has been successful in similar projects before.
- RL from human feedback has been used successfully to teach LLMs how to summarize, follow instructions, have conversations, and answer questions.
- LLMs are used to generate more data and make existing data better for training purposes.
- The experiments were done using a special dataset called Reddit TL;DR that was selected by OpenAI for this project.
- The human preference dataset was created by comparing different summaries made by different methods and seeing which ones people liked best.
- Both RLHF and RLAIF can make high-quality summaries that people like, but
Reinforcement Learning from Human and AI Feedback for Aligning Large Language Models with Human Preferences
In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance across various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. Reinforcement learning (RL) has also been used to optimize LLMs in order to align them with human preferences. In this study, two approaches of RL are compared: reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF). The task of summarization is used as a test case for the comparison between the two approaches.
Background
LLMs have been widely used in NLP tasks such as summarization, instruction following, dialogue and question answering. They can also be used for data generation and augmentation purposes. Recent work introduced the idea of RL from AI feedback (RLAIF), which combines LLM-labeled preferences with human-labeled preferences to optimize for helpfulness and harmlessness objectives.
Experimental Setup
The experiments conducted in this study use the filtered Reddit TL;DR dataset curated by OpenAI which contains posts from Reddit alongside summaries written by the original authors. A human preference dataset was also curated from this dataset using pairwise comparisons of candidate summaries generated by different policies.
Results
The results show that both RLHF and RLAIF result in similar improvements in the task of summarization when compared to a baseline supervised fine-tuned model. Human evaluators prefer generations from both approaches over a baseline supervised fine-tuned model in about 70% of cases when asked to rate RLAIF vs. RLHF summaries humans show equal preference for both but there are some observed differences between the two approaches: RLAIF appears less likely to produce hallucinations while RLHF sometimes produces less coherent or grammatical summaries overall both approaches produce high quality summaries that are relatively similar
Conclusion
This study provides insights into the effectiveness of RLHF and RLAIF for aligning LLMs with human preferences in the task of summarization Both approaches yield high quality summaries preferred by humans with some differences in terms of hallucinations and coherence/grammar issues These findings suggest that RLAIF can offer a scalable solution to the limitations of RLHF