Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences

Authors: Daniel M. Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Jeffrey Wu, Tom B. Brown, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, Paul Christiano, Geoffrey Irving

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 1909.08593v1

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
This paper explores the application of reward learning to natural language tasks using generative pretraining of language models. Reward learning allows reinforcement learning (RL) to be applied to tasks where the reward is defined by human judgment. While most previous work on reward learning has focused on simulated environments, this paper argues that incorporating reward learning for language is crucial for making RL practical and safe for real-world tasks. The authors specifically focus on four natural language tasks: continuing text with positive sentiment or physically descriptive language, and summarization tasks on the TL;DR and CNN/Daily Mail datasets. For stylistic continuation, they achieve promising results with only 5,000 comparisons evaluated by humans. When it comes to summarization, the models trained with 60,000 comparisons tend to copy whole sentences from the input while skipping irrelevant preamble. This approach leads to reasonable ROUGE scores and high performance according to human labelers. However, there is a concern that these models may be exploiting the fact that labelers rely on simple heuristics. Overall, this research demonstrates how reward learning can be effectively applied to natural language tasks using generative pretraining of language models. The findings highlight both the potential and limitations of using reward learning in real-world applications and provide insights into improving RL systems for language-related tasks.
AI-generated keywords: Reward Learning

AI-generated Key Points

  • This paper explores the application of reward learning to natural language tasks using generative pretraining of language models.
  • Reward learning allows reinforcement learning (RL) to be applied to tasks where the reward is defined by human judgment.
  • Incorporating reward learning for language is crucial for making RL practical and safe for real-world tasks.
  • The authors focus on four natural language tasks: continuing text with positive sentiment or physically descriptive language, and summarization tasks on the TL;DR and CNN/Daily Mail datasets.
  • Promising results are achieved in stylistic continuation with only 5,000 comparisons evaluated by humans.
  • Models trained with 60,000 comparisons tend to copy whole sentences from the input while skipping irrelevant preamble in summarization tasks.
  • This approach leads to reasonable ROUGE scores and high performance according to human labelers, but there is a concern about models exploiting simple heuristics used by labelers.
  • The research demonstrates how reward learning can be effectively applied to natural language tasks using generative pretraining of language models.
  • The findings highlight both the potential and limitations of using reward learning in real-world applications and provide insights into improving RL systems for language-related tasks.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: Reward learning enables the application of reinforcement learning (RL) to tasks where reward is defined by human judgment, building a model of reward by asking humans questions. Most work on reward learning has used simulated environments, but complex information about values is often expressed in natural language, and we believe reward learning for language is a key to making RL practical and safe for real-world tasks. In this paper, we build on advances in generative pretraining of language models to apply reward learning to four natural language tasks: continuing text with positive sentiment or physically descriptive language, and summarization tasks on the TL;DR and CNN/Daily Mail datasets. For stylistic continuation we achieve good results with only 5,000 comparisons evaluated by humans. For summarization, models trained with 60,000 comparisons copy whole sentences from the input but skip irrelevant preamble; this leads to reasonable ROUGE scores and very good performance according to our human labelers, but may be exploiting the fact that labelers rely on simple heuristics.

Submitted to arXiv on 18 Sep. 2019

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 1

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

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.