LLM Critics Help Catch LLM Bugs

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is fundamentally limited by the capacity of humans to correctly evaluate model output. To improve human evaluation ability and overcome that limitation this work trains "critic" models that help humans to more accurately evaluate model-written code. These critics are themselves LLMs trained with RLHF to write natural language feedback highlighting problems in code from real-world assistant tasks. On code containing naturally occurring LLM errors model-written critiques are preferred over human critiques in 63% of cases, and human evaluation finds that models catch more bugs than human contractors paid for code review. We further confirm that our fine-tuned LLM critics can successfully identify hundreds of errors in ChatGPT training data rated as "flawless", even though the majority of those tasks are non-code tasks and thus out-of-distribution for the critic model. Critics can have limitations of their own, including hallucinated bugs that could mislead humans into making mistakes they might have otherwise avoided, but human-machine teams of critics and contractors catch similar numbers of bugs to LLM critics while hallucinating less than LLMs alone.

Generalized Wick Decompositions

We review the cumulant decomposition (a way of decomposing the expectation of a product of random variables (e.g. $\mathbb{E}[XYZ]$) into a sum of terms corresponding to partitions of these variables.) and the Wick decomposition (a way of decomposing a product of (not necessarily random) variables into a sum of terms corresponding to subsets of the variables). Then we generalize each one to a new decomposition where the product function is generalized to an arbitrary function.