Rethinking Bradley-Terry Models in Preference-Based Reward Modeling: Foundations, Theory, and Alternatives

The Bradley-Terry (BT) model is a common and successful practice in reward modeling for Large Language Model (LLM) alignment. However, it remains unclear why this model -- originally developed for multi-player stochastic game matching -- can be adopted to convert pairwise response comparisons to reward values and make predictions. Especially given the fact that only a limited number of prompt-response pairs are sparsely compared with others. In this paper, we first revisit the foundations of using BT models in reward modeling, and establish the convergence rate of BT reward models based on deep neural networks using embeddings, providing a theoretical foundation for their use. Despite theoretically sound, we argue that the BT model is not a necessary choice from the perspective of downstream optimization. This is because a reward model only needs to preserve the correct ranking predictions through a monotonic transformation of the true reward. We highlight the critical concept of order consistency in reward modeling and demonstrate that the BT model possesses this property. Consequently, we propose a simple and straightforward upper-bound algorithm, compatible with off-the-shelf binary classifiers, as an alternative order-consistent reward modeling objective. To offer practical insights, we empirically evaluate the performance of these different reward modeling approaches across more than 12,000 experimental setups, using $6$ base LLMs, $2$ datasets, and diverse annotation designs that vary in quantity, quality, and pairing choices in preference annotations.

ACC-Debate: An Actor-Critic Approach to Multi-Agent Debate

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated a remarkable ability to serve as general-purpose tools for various language-based tasks. Recent works have demonstrated that the efficacy of such models can be improved through iterative dialog between multiple models, frequently referred to as multi-agent debate (MAD). While debate shows promise as a means of improving model efficacy, most works in this area treat debate as an emergent behavior, rather than a learned behavior. In doing so, current debate frameworks rely on collaborative behaviors to have been sufficiently trained into off-the-shelf models. To address this limitation, we propose ACC-Debate, an Actor-Critic based learning framework to produce a two-agent team specialized in debate. We demonstrate that ACC-Debate outperforms SotA debate techniques on a wide array of benchmarks.

Overcoming Reward Overoptimization via Adversarial Policy Optimization with Lightweight Uncertainty Estimation

We introduce Adversarial Policy Optimization (AdvPO), a novel solution to the pervasive issue of reward over-optimization in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) for Large Language Models (LLMs). Over-optimization occurs when a reward model serves as an imperfect proxy for human preference, and RL-driven policy optimization erroneously exploits reward inaccuracies. In this paper, we begin by introducing a lightweight way to quantify uncertainties in rewards, relying solely on the last layer embeddings of the reward model, without the need for computationally expensive reward ensembles. AdvPO then addresses a distributionally robust optimization problem centred around the confidence interval of the reward model's predictions for policy improvement. Through comprehensive experiments on the Anthropic HH and TL;DR summarization datasets, we illustrate the efficacy of AdvPO in mitigating the overoptimization issue, consequently resulting in enhanced performance as evaluated through human-assisted evaluation.

Dataset Fairness: Achievable Fairness on Your Data With Utility Guarantees

In machine learning fairness, training models which minimize disparity across different sensitive groups often leads to diminished accuracy, a phenomenon known as the fairness-accuracy trade-off. The severity of this trade-off fundamentally depends on dataset characteristics such as dataset imbalances or biases. Therefore using a uniform fairness requirement across datasets remains questionable and can often lead to models with substantially low utility. To address this, we present a computationally efficient approach to approximate the fairness-accuracy trade-off curve tailored to individual datasets, backed by rigorous statistical guarantees. By utilizing the You-Only-Train-Once (YOTO) framework, our approach mitigates the computational burden of having to train multiple models when approximating the trade-off curve. Moreover, we quantify the uncertainty in our approximation by introducing confidence intervals around this curve, offering a statistically grounded perspective on the acceptable range of fairness violations for any given accuracy threshold. Our empirical evaluation spanning tabular, image and language datasets underscores that our approach provides practitioners with a principled framework for dataset-specific fairness decisions across various data modalities.

Measuring and Reducing LLM Hallucination without Gold-Standard Answers via Expertise-Weighting

LLM hallucination, i.e. generating factually incorrect yet seemingly convincing answers, is currently a major threat to the trustworthiness and reliability of LLMs. The first step towards solving this complicated problem is to measure it. However, existing hallucination metrics require to have a benchmark dataset with gold-standard answers, i.e. "best" or "correct" answers written by humans. Such requirement makes hallucination measurement costly and prone to human errors. In this work, we propose Factualness Evaluations via Weighting LLMs (FEWL), the first hallucination metric that is specifically designed for the scenario when gold-standard answers are absent. FEWL leverages the answers from off-the-shelf LLMs that serve as a proxy of gold-standard answers. The key challenge is how to quantify the expertise of reference LLMs resourcefully. We show FEWL has certain theoretical guarantees and demonstrate empirically it gives more accurate hallucination measures than naively using reference LLMs. We also show how to leverage FEWL to reduce hallucination through both in-context learning and supervised finetuning. Last, we build a large-scale benchmark dataset to facilitate LLM hallucination research.

Marginal Density Ratio for Off-Policy Evaluation in Contextual Bandits

Off-Policy Evaluation (OPE) in contextual bandits is crucial for assessing new policies using existing data without costly experimentation. However, current OPE methods, such as Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) and Doubly Robust (DR) estimators, suffer from high variance, particularly in cases of low overlap between target and behavior policies or large action and context spaces. In this paper, we introduce a new OPE estimator for contextual bandits, the Marginal Ratio (MR) estimator, which focuses on the shift in the marginal distribution of outcomes $Y$ instead of the policies themselves. Through rigorous theoretical analysis, we demonstrate the benefits of the MR estimator compared to conventional methods like IPW and DR in terms of variance reduction. Additionally, we establish a connection between the MR estimator and the state-of-the-art Marginalized Inverse Propensity Score (MIPS) estimator, proving that MR achieves lower variance among a generalized family of MIPS estimators. We further illustrate the utility of the MR estimator in causal inference settings, where it exhibits enhanced performance in estimating Average Treatment Effects (ATE). Our experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets corroborate our theoretical findings and highlight the practical advantages of the MR estimator in OPE for contextual bandits.

Deep Concept Removal

We address the problem of concept removal in deep neural networks, aiming to learn representations that do not encode certain specified concepts (e.g., gender etc.) We propose a novel method based on adversarial linear classifiers trained on a concept dataset, which helps to remove the targeted attribute while maintaining model performance. Our approach Deep Concept Removal incorporates adversarial probing classifiers at various layers of the network, effectively addressing concept entanglement and improving out-of-distribution generalization. We also introduce an implicit gradient-based technique to tackle the challenges associated with adversarial training using linear classifiers. We evaluate the ability to remove a concept on a set of popular distributionally robust optimization (DRO) benchmarks with spurious correlations, as well as out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization tasks.

Invariant Learning via Probability of Sufficient and Necessary Causes

Out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization is indispensable for learning models in the wild, where testing distribution typically unknown and different from the training. Recent methods derived from causality have shown great potential in achieving OOD generalization. However, existing methods mainly focus on the invariance property of causes, while largely overlooking the property of \textit{sufficiency} and \textit{necessity} conditions. Namely, a necessary but insufficient cause (feature) is invariant to distribution shift, yet it may not have required accuracy. By contrast, a sufficient yet unnecessary cause (feature) tends to fit specific data well but may have a risk of adapting to a new domain. To capture the information of sufficient and necessary causes, we employ a classical concept, the probability of sufficiency and necessary causes (PNS), which indicates the probability of whether one is the necessary and sufficient cause. To associate PNS with OOD generalization, we propose PNS risk and formulate an algorithm to learn representation with a high PNS value. We theoretically analyze and prove the generalizability of the PNS risk. Experiments on both synthetic and real-world benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. The details of the implementation can be found at the GitHub repository: https://github.com/ymy4323460/CaSN.

Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment

Ensuring alignment, which refers to making models behave in accordance with human intentions [1,2], has become a critical task before deploying large language models (LLMs) in real-world applications. For instance, OpenAI devoted six months to iteratively aligning GPT-4 before its release [3]. However, a major challenge faced by practitioners is the lack of clear guidance on evaluating whether LLM outputs align with social norms, values, and regulations. This obstacle hinders systematic iteration and deployment of LLMs. To address this issue, this paper presents a comprehensive survey of key dimensions that are crucial to consider when assessing LLM trustworthiness. The survey covers seven major categories of LLM trustworthiness: reliability, safety, fairness, resistance to misuse, explainability and reasoning, adherence to social norms, and robustness. Each major category is further divided into several sub-categories, resulting in a total of 29 sub-categories. Additionally, a subset of 8 sub-categories is selected for further investigation, where corresponding measurement studies are designed and conducted on several widely-used LLMs. The measurement results indicate that, in general, more aligned models tend to perform better in terms of overall trustworthiness. However, the effectiveness of alignment varies across the different trustworthiness categories considered. This highlights the importance of conducting more fine-grained analyses, testing, and making continuous improvements on LLM alignment. By shedding light on these key dimensions of LLM trustworthiness, this paper aims to provide valuable insights and guidance to practitioners in the field. Understanding and addressing these concerns will be crucial in achieving reliable and ethically sound deployment of LLMs in various applications.

Conformal Off-Policy Prediction in Contextual Bandits

Most off-policy evaluation methods for contextual bandits have focused on the expected outcome of a policy, which is estimated via methods that at best provide only asymptotic guarantees. However, in many applications, the expectation may not be the best measure of performance as it does not capture the variability of the outcome. In addition, particularly in safety-critical settings, stronger guarantees than asymptotic correctness may be required. To address these limitations, we consider a novel application of conformal prediction to contextual bandits. Given data collected under a behavioral policy, we propose \emph{conformal off-policy prediction} (COPP), which can output reliable predictive intervals for the outcome under a new target policy. We provide theoretical finite-sample guarantees without making any additional assumptions beyond the standard contextual bandit setup, and empirically demonstrate the utility of COPP compared with existing methods on synthetic and real-world data.