The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2410.17055 · v2 · pith:RJIXMJEU · submitted 2024-10-22 · cs.LG · stat.ML

Optimal Design for Reward Modeling in RLHF

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:RJIXMJEUrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.LG stat.ML
keywords rewardhumanmodelapproachpreferencesrlhfalignbound
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has become a popular approach to align language models (LMs) with human preferences. This method involves collecting a large dataset of human pairwise preferences across various text generations and using it to infer (implicitly or explicitly) a reward model. Numerous methods have been proposed to learn the reward model and align a LM with it. However, the costly process of collecting human preferences has received little attention and could benefit from theoretical insights. This paper addresses this issue and aims to formalize the reward training model in RLHF. We frame the selection of an effective dataset as a simple regret minimization task, using a linear contextual dueling bandit method. Given the potentially large number of arms, this approach is more coherent than the best-arm identification setting. We then propose an offline framework for solving this problem. Under appropriate assumptions - linearity of the reward model in the embedding space, and boundedness of the reward parameter - we derive bounds on the simple regret. Finally, we provide a lower bound that matches our upper bound up to constant and logarithmic terms. To our knowledge, this is the first theoretical contribution in this area to provide an offline approach as well as worst-case guarantees.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Which Pairs to Compare for LLM Post-Training?

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Matching upper and lower bounds on DPO policy optimality gap are derived that depend on a single design-dependent information matrix linking pair selection to estimation error and suboptimality.

  2. How Neural Reward Models Learn Features for Policy Optimization: A Single-Index Analysis

    stat.ML 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    In a Gaussian single-index model, neural reward models recover the hidden direction for β1 above an O(1) threshold and provide tilted-policy value-gap bounds for label-weighted and surrogate-weighted exponential fits.

  3. Goal-Conditioned Supervised Learning for LLM Fine-Tuning

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    GCSL reframes LLM fine-tuning as supervised pursuit of quality thresholds using natural-language goals, outperforming SFT and DPO on toxicity, code, and recommendation tasks.

  4. Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback: A Statistical Perspective

    stat.ML 2026-04 accept novelty 2.0

    A statistical survey of RLHF for LLM alignment that connects preference learning and policy optimization to models like Bradley-Terry-Luce while reviewing methods, extensions, and open challenges.