Wei Xiong

Heyang Zhao, Chenlu Ye, Wei Xiong et al.

Recent advances in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) have shown that KL-regularization plays a pivotal role in improving the efficiency of RL fine-tuning for large language models (LLMs). Despite its empirical advantage, the theoretical difference between KL-regularized RL and standard RL remains largely under-explored. While there is a recent line of work on the theoretical analysis of KL-regularized objective in decision making \citep{xiong2024iterative, xie2024exploratory,zhao2024sharp}, these analyses either reduce to the traditional RL setting or rely on strong coverage assumptions. In this paper, we propose an optimism-based KL-regularized online contextual bandit algorithm, and provide a novel analysis of its regret. By carefully leveraging the benign optimization landscape induced by the KL-regularization and the optimistic reward estimation, our algorithm achieves an $\mathcal{O}\big(η\log (N_{\mathcal R} T)\cdot d_{\mathcal R}\big)$ logarithmic regret bound, where $η, N_{\mathcal R},T,d_{\mathcal R}$ denote the KL-regularization parameter, the cardinality of the reward function class, number of rounds, and the complexity of the reward function class. Furthermore, we extend our algorithm and analysis to reinforcement learning by developing a novel decomposition over transition steps and also obtain a similar logarithmic regret bound.

Haoxiang Wang, Wei Xiong, Tengyang Xie et al.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as the primary method for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. The RLHF process typically starts by training a reward model (RM) using human preference data. Conventional RMs are trained on pairwise responses to the same user request, with relative ratings indicating which response humans prefer. The trained RM serves as a proxy for human preferences. However, due to the black-box nature of RMs, their outputs lack interpretability, as humans cannot intuitively understand why an RM thinks a response is good or not. As RMs act as human preference proxies, we believe they should be human-interpretable to ensure that their internal decision processes are consistent with human preferences and to prevent reward hacking in LLM alignment. To build RMs with interpretable preferences, we propose a two-stage approach: i) train an Absolute-Rating Multi-Objective Reward Model (ArmoRM) with multi-dimensional absolute-rating data, each dimension corresponding to a human-interpretable objective (e.g., honesty, verbosity, safety); ii) employ a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) strategy with a gating network that automatically selects the most suitable reward objectives based on the context. We efficiently trained an ArmoRM with Llama-3 8B and a gating network consisting of a shallow MLP on top of the ArmoRM. Our trained model, ArmoRM-Llama3-8B, obtains state-of-the-art performance on RewardBench, a benchmark evaluating RMs for language modeling. Notably, the performance of our model surpasses the LLM-as-a-judge method with GPT-4 judges by a margin, and approaches the performance of the much larger Nemotron-4 340B reward model.