KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization
Authors: Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Niklas Muennighoff, Dan Jurafsky, Douwe Kiela
AI-generated Key Points
- Authors: Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Niklas Muennighoff, Dan Jurafsky, Douwe Kiela
- Concept: Model alignment in the context of prospect theory
- Highlight: Aligning Language Models (LLMs) with human feedback to incorporate biases from prospect theory like loss aversion
- Idea introduced: "human-aware losses" (HALOs) as loss functions capturing biases for successful alignment objectives like DPO
- New HALO proposed: Kahneman-Tversky Optimization (KTO) based on Kahneman & Tversky's prospect theory
- KTO focus: Maximizing utility of generations rather than log-likelihood of preferences
- Performance surprise: KTO outperforms preference-based methods despite learning only from binary signals indicating desirability
- Conclusion emphasis: Importance of inductive biases in alignment objectives and no one-size-fits-all HALO choice
- Significance: Incorporating human biases into machine learning models for more effective model alignment strategies
Abstract: Kahneman & Tversky's $\textit{prospect theory}$ tells us that humans perceive random variables in a biased but well-defined manner (1992); for example, humans are famously loss-averse. We show that objectives for aligning LLMs with human feedback implicitly incorporate many of these biases -- the success of these objectives (e.g., DPO) over cross-entropy minimization can partly be ascribed to them belonging to a family of loss functions that we call $\textit{human-aware losses}$ (HALOs). However, the utility functions these methods attribute to humans still differ from those in the prospect theory literature. Using a Kahneman-Tversky model of human utility, we propose a HALO that directly maximizes the utility of generations instead of maximizing the log-likelihood of preferences, as current methods do. We call this approach KTO, and it matches or exceeds the performance of preference-based methods at scales from 1B to 30B, despite only learning from a binary signal of whether an output is desirable. More broadly, our work suggests that there is no one HALO that is universally superior; the best loss depends on the inductive biases most appropriate for a given setting, an oft-overlooked consideration.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm compares the title and abstract of this paper with all the papers of the same arXiv category that we have summarized, and finds the closest ones. You can rerun it from time to time: the results improve as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.