Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback

AI-generated keywords: Preference Modeling Reinforcement Learning Human Feedback Natural Language Processing Finetuning

AI-generated Key Points

  • The article discusses the use of preference modeling and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to improve language models as helpful assistants.
  • Alignment training using RLHF improves performance on almost all natural language processing evaluations, including specialized skills like python coding and summarization.
  • An iterated online mode of training is explored where preference models and RL policies are updated weekly with fresh human feedback data, efficiently improving datasets and models.
  • The robustness of RLHF training is investigated, identifying a roughly linear relation between the RL reward and the square root of the KL divergence between the policy and its initialization.
  • Peripheral analyses are performed on calibration, competing objectives, and the use of OOD detection.
  • Large preference models trained on a mixture of human-human (HH) and learning-to-summarize (LtS) datasets perform equally well on both.
  • RLHF decreases the performance of small code models but improves larger ones when combined with natural language alignment for coding tasks.
  • Improvements in performance from RLHF are modest in all evaluations but valuable for finetuning language models for specialized skills like coding or summarization.
  • Simply prompting a base code model performs slightly better than using RLHF alone.
  • Sam Ge is thanked for his contributions to this research.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Nicholas Joseph, Saurav Kadavath, Jackson Kernion, Tom Conerly, Sheer El-Showk, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Tristan Hume, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Liane Lovitt, Neel Nanda, Catherine Olsson, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, Ben Mann, Jared Kaplan

Data available at https://github.com/anthropics/hh-rlhf
License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: We apply preference modeling and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to finetune language models to act as helpful and harmless assistants. We find this alignment training improves performance on almost all NLP evaluations, and is fully compatible with training for specialized skills such as python coding and summarization. We explore an iterated online mode of training, where preference models and RL policies are updated on a weekly cadence with fresh human feedback data, efficiently improving our datasets and models. Finally, we investigate the robustness of RLHF training, and identify a roughly linear relation between the RL reward and the square root of the KL divergence between the policy and its initialization. Alongside our main results, we perform peripheral analyses on calibration, competing objectives, and the use of OOD detection, compare our models with human writers, and provide samples from our models using prompts appearing in recent related work.

Submitted to arXiv on 12 Apr. 2022

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2204.05862v1

The article discusses the application of preference modeling and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to finetune language models as helpful and harmless assistants. The authors find that this alignment training improves performance on almost all natural language processing evaluations, including specialized skills such as python coding and summarization. They explore an iterated online mode of training where preference models and RL policies are updated weekly with fresh human feedback data, efficiently improving datasets and models. The authors also investigate the robustness of RLHF training and identify a roughly linear relation between the RL reward and the square root of the KL divergence between the policy and its initialization. They perform peripheral analyses on calibration, competing objectives, and the use of OOD detection, compare their models with human writers, and provide samples from their models using prompts appearing in recent related work. In one experiment, large preference models trained on a mixture of human-human (HH) and learning-to-summarize (LtS) datasets perform equally well on both. This suggests that there is no cost to mixing HH with specific skill evaluation like summarization quality. In another experiment, they test whether natural language alignment can be combined with coding without compromising performance. The authors find that RLHF decreases the performance of small code models but improves larger ones. Overall, while improvements in performance from RLHF are modest in all evaluations, it is still valuable for finetuning language models for specialized skills like coding or summarization. The authors emphasize that simply prompting a base code model performs slightly better than using RLHF alone. Finally, they thank Sam Ge for his contributions to this research.
Created on 14 May. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

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.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while 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.