REVIEW 2 cited by
Regularized Best-of-N Sampling with Minimum Bayes Risk Objective for Language Model Alignment
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
read the original abstract
Best-of-N (BoN) sampling with a reward model has been shown to be an effective strategy for aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) to human preferences at the time of decoding. BoN sampling is susceptible to a problem known as reward hacking when the accuracy of the reward model is not high enough due to the quality or the quantity of the preference dataset. Because the reward model is an imperfect proxy for the true objective, over-optimizing its value can compromise its performance on the true objective. In this research, we propose MBR-BoN, a variant of BoN that aims to mitigate reward hacking at inference time by incorporating the Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) objective as a proximity regularization term. We show empirically and analytically that the MBR objective quantifies the proximity of the response to the reference policy, serving as a proximity regularizer. We evaluate MBR-BoN on the AlpacaFarm and Anthropic's hh-rlhf datasets and show that it outperforms both BoN sampling and MBR decoding. We also evaluate MBR-BoN to generate a pairwise preference learning dataset for Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Empirical results show that models trained on a dataset generated with MBR-BoN outperform those with vanilla BoN. Our code is available at https://github.com/CyberAgentAILab/regularized-bon
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Representation-Based Exploration for Language Models: From Test-Time to Post-Training
Representation-based elliptical bonuses improve inference-time and post-training pass@k for LLM reasoning, but the headline AIME result is tainted by validation/test overlap.
-
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.