Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Reward Shaping to Mitigate Reward Hacking in RLHF

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 2502.18770 v6 pith:W67GST2Z submitted 2025-02-26 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL
keywords rewardrlhfreinforcement-learninghackingprinciplesshapingbasecompare
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is widely used to align large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, RLHF remains vulnerable to \emph{reward hacking}, whereby a policy exploits imperfections in the reward function instead of learning the intended behavior, thereby undermining alignment. Although reward shaping can stabilize RLHF training and partially mitigate reward hacking, shaping methods and their underlying design principles have not been systematically investigated. To address this gap, we conduct a comprehensive study of prevalent reward-shaping techniques. Our analysis identifies two key design principles: (1) the reinforcement-learning reward should be bounded, and (2) it should grow rapidly at first and then gradually saturate. Motivated by these principles, we propose Preference as Reward (PAR), a novel method that uses the latent preferences encoded in the reward model as the reinforcement-learning signal. We further show that PAR possesses two variance-reduction properties that stabilize RLHF training and substantially widen the practical window for early stopping. Our evaluation consists of two parts. First, we compare PAR with several reward-shaping strategies using Gemma2-2B as the base model, UltraFeedback Binarized as the dataset, and Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) as the reinforcement-learning algorithm. Second, we compare PAR with the unshaped reward baseline across three base models, the HH-RLHF dataset, and four reinforcement-learning algorithms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. RewardAnything: Generalizable Principle-Following Reward Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RewardAnything follows natural-language reward principles at inference time and, with the new RABench benchmark, demonstrates that principle-conditioned listwise training beats fixed-preference reward models on held-o...

  2. Enhancing Tool Learning in Large Language Models with Hierarchical Error Checklists

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HiTEC improves LLM tool calling by embedding hierarchical error checklists in prompts or using them to generate negative examples for KTO fine-tuning.

Pith tools