Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 cited by

Reward-Robust RLHF in LLMs

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.15360 v3 pith:KN4XLYFF submitted 2024-09-18 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL
keywords rewardframeworkrlhflearningllmsperformancereward-robuststability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to progress toward more advanced forms of intelligence, Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is increasingly seen as a key pathway toward achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). However, the reliance on reward-model-based (RM-based) alignment methods introduces significant challenges due to the inherent instability and imperfections of Reward Models (RMs), which can lead to critical issues such as reward hacking and misalignment with human intentions. In this paper, we introduce a reward-robust RLHF framework aimed at addressing these fundamental challenges, paving the way for more reliable and resilient learning in LLMs. Our approach introduces a novel optimization objective that carefully balances performance and robustness by incorporating Bayesian Reward Model Ensembles (BRME) to model the uncertainty set of reward functions. This allows the framework to integrate both nominal performance and minimum reward signals, ensuring more stable learning even with imperfect RMs. Empirical results demonstrate that our framework consistently outperforms baselines across diverse benchmarks, showing improved accuracy and long-term stability. We also provide a theoretical analysis, demonstrating that reward-robust RLHF approaches the stability of constant reward settings, which proves to be acceptable even in a stochastic-case analysis. Together, these contributions highlight the framework potential to enhance both the performance and stability of LLM alignment.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Multimodal Reward Hacking in Reinforcement Learning

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Imperfect multimodal RL rewards systematically create new failures (NRFR > RHR); scaling and answer-aware rewards help but do not eliminate hacking, and unreliable visual verifiers actively increase it.

  2. Robust General Utility for Reinforcement Learning

    cs.LG 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper introduces robust general-utility RL, a minimax formulation over utility uncertainty sets, and proves convergence rates for projected gradient descent-ascent and prox-extragradient algorithms.

  3. SCOPE and SCION: A Benchmark and an Auditable Reference Pipeline for Schema Induction and Fusion from Text

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 24-dataset benchmark for inducing schema graphs from raw text, plus an auditable LLM-based pipeline that reports the highest scores on the benchmark's four schema-similarity metrics.

  4. Bradley-Terry and Multi-Objective Reward Modeling Are Complementary

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Jointly training a Bradley-Terry preference head and a multi-attribute regression head on a shared embedding improves reward-model robustness to reward hacking and boosts multi-objective scoring performance.

  5. Ethics and Persuasion in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback: A Procedural Rhetorical Approach

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RLHF-enhanced chatbots exert subtle procedural persuasion on users by reinforcing language norms, reshaping information seeking, and conditioning relationship expectations, creating overlooked ethical risks.

  6. Knowledge Boundary of Large Language Models: A Survey

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A survey that formalizes the knowledge boundary of LLMs into a four-type taxonomy and reviews detection and mitigation methods.

  7. Baichuan4-Finance Technical Report

    cs.CL 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A finance-tuned LLM reportedly beats strong baselines on Chinese financial exams, but the training data includes exam questions and no contamination check is reported.

Pith tools