Timo Kaufmann

Santo M. A. R. Thies, Viktor Bengs, Timo Kaufmann et al.

Calibration, the alignment of predicted probabilities with true outcome frequencies, is essential for reliable decision-making. While extensively studied for classification and regression, calibration has not been formally addressed for probabilistic label ranking, where the goal is to predict a distribution over orderings of a label set. Naively treating rankings as classes ignores their structure and fails to capture important modalities such as pairwise and top-k predictions. We formalize calibration for label ranking and develop a hierarchy of notions covering full rankings, sub-rankings, and top-k rankings. We prove that full-rank calibration implies the others but not conversely, and sub-ranking and top-k calibration are incomparable. Empirically, we find popular label ranking models are often poorly calibrated, with substantial differences between sub-ranking and top-k metrics. Applying our framework to RLHF reward models, we find that calibration correlates strongly but not perfectly with benchmark accuracy, suggesting it captures a meaningful quality dimension beyond top-1 accuracy. These findings motivate future work on understanding the downstream effects of miscalibration and developing methods to correct it.

Subhabrata Dutta, Timo Kaufmann, Goran Glavaš et al.

While there is a widespread belief that artificial general intelligence (AGI) -- or even superhuman AI -- is imminent, complex problems in expert domains are far from being solved. We argue that such problems require human-AI cooperation and that the current state of the art in generative AI is unable to play the role of a reliable partner due to a multitude of shortcomings, including difficulty to keep track of a complex solution artifact (e.g., a software program), limited support for versatile human preference expression and lack of adapting to human preference in an interactive setting. To address these challenges, we propose HAICo2, a novel human-AI co-construction framework. We take first steps towards a formalization of HAICo2 and discuss the difficult open research problems that it faces.

Timo Kaufmann, Yannick Metz, Daniel Keim et al.

Binary choices, as often used for reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), convey only the direction of a preference. A person may choose apples over oranges and bananas over grapes, but which preference is stronger? Strength is crucial for decision-making under uncertainty and generalization of preference models, but hard to measure reliably. Metadata such as response times and inter-annotator agreement can serve as proxies for strength, but are often noisy and confounded. We propose ResponseRank to address the challenge of learning from noisy strength signals. Our method uses relative differences in proxy signals to rank responses to pairwise comparisons by their inferred preference strength. To control for systemic variation, we compare signals only locally within carefully constructed strata. This enables robust learning of utility differences consistent with strength-derived rankings while making minimal assumptions about the strength signal. Our contributions are threefold: (1) ResponseRank, a novel method that robustly learns preference strength by leveraging locally valid relative strength signals; (2) empirical evidence of improved sample efficiency and robustness across diverse tasks: synthetic preference learning (with simulated response times), language modeling (with annotator agreement), and RL control tasks (with simulated episode returns); and (3) the Pearson Distance Correlation (PDC), a novel metric that isolates cardinal utility learning from ordinal accuracy.

Timo Kaufmann, Paul Weng, Viktor Bengs et al.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is a variant of reinforcement learning (RL) that learns from human feedback instead of relying on an engineered reward function. Building on prior work on the related setting of preference-based reinforcement learning (PbRL), it stands at the intersection of artificial intelligence and human-computer interaction. This positioning offers a promising avenue to enhance the performance and adaptability of intelligent systems while also improving the alignment of their objectives with human values. The training of large language models (LLMs) has impressively demonstrated this potential in recent years, where RLHF played a decisive role in directing the model's capabilities toward human objectives. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the fundamentals of RLHF, exploring the intricate dynamics between RL agents and human input. While recent focus has been on RLHF for LLMs, our survey adopts a broader perspective, examining the diverse applications and wide-ranging impact of the technique. We delve into the core principles that underpin RLHF, shedding light on the symbiotic relationship between algorithms and human feedback, and discuss the main research trends in the field. By synthesizing the current landscape of RLHF research, this article aims to provide researchers as well as practitioners with a comprehensive understanding of this rapidly growing field of research.

Arduin Findeis, Timo Kaufmann, Eyke Hüllermeier et al.

Some traits making a "good" AI model are hard to describe upfront. For example, should responses be more polite or more casual? Such traits are sometimes summarized as model character or personality. Without a clear objective, conventional benchmarks based on automatic validation struggle to measure such traits. Evaluation methods using human feedback such as Chatbot Arena have emerged as a popular alternative. These methods infer "better" personality and other desirable traits implicitly by ranking multiple model responses relative to each other. Recent issues with model releases highlight limitations of these existing opaque evaluation approaches: a major model was rolled back over sycophantic personality issues, models were observed overfitting to such feedback-based leaderboards. Despite these known issues, limited public tooling exists to explicitly evaluate model personality. We introduce Feedback Forensics: an open-source toolkit to track AI personality changes, both those encouraged by human (or AI) feedback, and those exhibited across AI models trained and evaluated on such feedback. Leveraging AI annotators, our toolkit enables investigating personality via Python API and browser app. We demonstrate the toolkit's usefulness in two steps: (A) first we analyse the personality traits encouraged in popular human feedback datasets including Chatbot Arena, MultiPref and PRISM; and (B) then use our toolkit to analyse how much popular models exhibit such traits. We release (1) our Feedback Forensics toolkit alongside (2) a web app tracking AI personality in popular models and feedback datasets as well as (3) the underlying annotation data at https://github.com/rdnfn/feedback-forensics.

Arduin Findeis, Timo Kaufmann, Eyke Hüllermeier et al.

Feedback data is widely used for fine-tuning and evaluating state-of-the-art AI models. Pairwise text preferences, where human or AI annotators select the "better" of two options, are particularly common. Such preferences are used to train (reward) models or to rank models with aggregate statistics. For many applications it is desirable to understand annotator preferences in addition to modelling them - not least because extensive prior work has shown various unintended biases in preference datasets. Yet, preference datasets remain challenging to interpret. Neither black-box reward models nor statistics can answer why one text is preferred over another. Manual interpretation of the numerous (long) response pairs is usually equally infeasible. In this paper, we introduce the Inverse Constitutional AI (ICAI) problem, formulating the interpretation of pairwise text preference data as a compression task. In constitutional AI, a set of principles (a constitution) is used to provide feedback and fine-tune AI models. ICAI inverts this process: given a feedback dataset, we aim to extract a constitution that best enables a large language model (LLM) to reconstruct the original annotations. We propose a corresponding ICAI algorithm and validate its generated constitutions quantitatively based on annotation reconstruction accuracy on several datasets: (a) synthetic feedback data with known principles; (b) AlpacaEval cross-annotated human feedback data; (c) crowdsourced Chatbot Arena data; and (d) PRISM data from diverse demographic groups. As a short and interpretable representation of the original dataset, generated constitutions have many potential use cases: help identify undesirable annotator biases, understand model performance better, scale feedback to unseen data, or adapt models to individual user or group preferences. We release the source code at https://github.com/rdnfn/icai.

Timo Kaufmann, Jannis Blüml, Antonia Wüst et al.

Properly defining a reward signal to efficiently train a reinforcement learning (RL) agent is a challenging task. Designing balanced objective functions from which a desired behavior can emerge requires expert knowledge, especially for complex environments. Learning rewards from human feedback or using large language models (LLMs) to directly provide rewards are promising alternatives, allowing non-experts to specify goals for the agent. However, black-box reward models make it difficult to debug the reward. In this work, we propose Object-Centric Assessment with Language Models (OCALM) to derive inherently interpretable reward functions for RL agents from natural language task descriptions. OCALM uses the extensive world-knowledge of LLMs while leveraging the object-centric nature common to many environments to derive reward functions focused on relational concepts, providing RL agents with the ability to derive policies from task descriptions.