Evolving Alignment via Asymmetric Self-Play

Current RLHF frameworks for aligning large language models (LLMs) typically assume a fixed prompt distribution, which is sub-optimal and limits the scalability of alignment and generalizability of models. To address this, we introduce a general open-ended RLHF framework that casts alignment as an asymmetric game between two players: (i) a creator that generates increasingly informative prompt distributions using the reward model, and (ii) a solver that learns to produce more preferred responses on prompts produced by the creator. This framework of Evolving Alignment via Asymmetric Self-Play (eva), results in a simple and efficient approach that can utilize any existing RLHF algorithm for scalable alignment. eva outperforms state-of-the-art methods on widely-used benchmarks, without the need of any additional human crafted prompts. Specifically, eva improves the win rate of Gemma-2-9B-it on Arena-Hard from 51.6% to 60.1% with DPO, from 55.7% to 58.9% with SPPO, from 52.3% to 60.7% with SimPO, and from 54.8% to 60.3% with ORPO, surpassing its 27B version and matching claude-3-opus. This improvement is persistent even when new human crafted prompts are introduced. Finally, we show eva is effective and robust under various ablation settings.

Asynchronous RLHF: Faster and More Efficient Off-Policy RL for Language Models

The dominant paradigm for RLHF is online and on-policy RL: synchronously generating from the large language model (LLM) policy, labelling with a reward model, and learning using feedback on the LLM's own outputs. While performant, this paradigm is computationally inefficient. Inspired by classical deep RL literature, we propose separating generation and learning in RLHF. This enables asynchronous generation of new samples while simultaneously training on old samples, leading to faster training and more compute-optimal scaling. However, asynchronous training relies on an underexplored regime, online but off-policy RLHF: learning on samples from previous iterations of our model. To understand the challenges in this regime, we investigate a fundamental question: how much off-policyness can we tolerate for asynchronous training to speed up learning but maintain performance? Among several RLHF algorithms we tested, we find that online DPO is most robust to off-policy data, and robustness increases with the scale of the policy model. We study further compute optimizations for asynchronous RLHF but find that they come at a performance cost, giving rise to a trade-off. Finally, we verify the scalability of asynchronous RLHF by training LLaMA 3.1 8B on an instruction-following task 40% faster than a synchronous run while matching final performance.

Speculative Knowledge Distillation: Bridging the Teacher-Student Gap Through Interleaved Sampling

Recent advances in knowledge distillation (KD) have enabled smaller student models to approach the performance of larger teacher models. However, popular methods such as supervised KD and on-policy KD, are adversely impacted by the knowledge gaps between teacher-student in practical scenarios. Supervised KD suffers from a distribution mismatch between training with a static dataset and inference over final student-generated outputs. Conversely, on-policy KD, which uses student-generated samples for training, can suffer from low-quality training examples with which teacher models are not familiar, resulting in inaccurate teacher feedback. To address these limitations, we introduce Speculative Knowledge Distillation (SKD), a novel approach that leverages cooperation between student and teacher models to generate high-quality training data on-the-fly while aligning with the student's inference-time distribution. In SKD, the student proposes tokens, and the teacher replaces poorly ranked ones based on its own distribution, transferring high-quality knowledge adaptively. We evaluate SKD on various text generation tasks, including translation, summarization, math, and instruction following, and show that SKD consistently outperforms existing KD methods across different domains, data sizes, and model initialization strategies.

Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoning

A promising approach for improving reasoning in large language models is to use process reward models (PRMs). PRMs provide feedback at each step of a multi-step reasoning trace, potentially improving credit assignment over outcome reward models (ORMs) that only provide feedback at the final step. However, collecting dense, per-step human labels is not scalable, and training PRMs from automatically-labeled data has thus far led to limited gains. To improve a base policy by running search against a PRM or using it as dense rewards for reinforcement learning (RL), we ask: "How should we design process rewards?". Our key insight is that, to be effective, the process reward for a step should measure progress: a change in the likelihood of producing a correct response in the future, before and after taking the step, corresponding to the notion of step-level advantages in RL. Crucially, this progress should be measured under a prover policy distinct from the base policy. We theoretically characterize the set of good provers and our results show that optimizing process rewards from such provers improves exploration during test-time search and online RL. In fact, our characterization shows that weak prover policies can substantially improve a stronger base policy, which we also observe empirically. We validate our claims by training process advantage verifiers (PAVs) to predict progress under such provers, and show that compared to ORMs, test-time search against PAVs is $>8\%$ more accurate, and $1.5-5\times$ more compute-efficient. Online RL with dense rewards from PAVs enables one of the first results with $5-6\times$ gain in sample efficiency, and $>6\%$ gain in accuracy, over ORMs.

Not All LLM Reasoners Are Created Equal

We study the depth of grade-school math (GSM) problem-solving capabilities of LLMs. To this end, we evaluate their performance on pairs of existing math word problems together so that the answer to the second problem depends on correctly answering the first problem. Our findings reveal a significant reasoning gap in most LLMs, that is performance difference between solving the compositional pairs and solving each question independently. This gap is more pronounced in smaller, more cost-efficient, and math-specialized models. Moreover, instruction-tuning recipes and code generation have varying effects across LLM sizes, while finetuning on GSM can lead to task overfitting. Our analysis indicates that large reasoning gaps are not because of test-set leakage, but due to distraction from additional context and poor second-hop reasoning. Overall, LLMs exhibit systematic differences in their reasoning abilities, despite what their performance on standard benchmarks indicates.

Smaller, Weaker, Yet Better: Training LLM Reasoners via Compute-Optimal Sampling

Training on high-quality synthetic data from strong language models (LMs) is a common strategy to improve the reasoning performance of LMs. In this work, we revisit whether this strategy is compute-optimal under a fixed inference budget (e.g., FLOPs). To do so, we investigate the trade-offs between generating synthetic data using a stronger but more expensive (SE) model versus a weaker but cheaper (WC) model. We evaluate the generated data across three key metrics: coverage, diversity, and false positive rate, and show that the data from WC models may have higher coverage and diversity, but also exhibit higher false positive rates. We then finetune LMs on data from SE and WC models in different settings: knowledge distillation, self-improvement, and a novel weak-to-strong improvement setup where a weaker LM teaches reasoning to a stronger LM. Our findings reveal that models finetuned on WC-generated data consistently outperform those trained on SE-generated data across multiple benchmarks and multiple choices of WC and SE models. These results challenge the prevailing practice of relying on SE models for synthetic data generation, suggesting that WC may be the compute-optimal approach for training advanced LM reasoners.

Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Prediction

Verifiers or reward models are often used to enhance the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs). A common approach is the Best-of-N method, where N candidate solutions generated by the LLM are ranked by a verifier, and the best one is selected. While LLM-based verifiers are typically trained as discriminative classifiers to score solutions, they do not utilize the text generation capabilities of pretrained LLMs. To overcome this limitation, we instead propose training verifiers using the ubiquitous next-token prediction objective, jointly on verification and solution generation. Compared to standard verifiers, such generative verifiers (GenRM) can benefit from several advantages of LLMs: they integrate seamlessly with instruction tuning, enable chain-of-thought reasoning, and can utilize additional inference-time compute via majority voting for better verification. We demonstrate that when using Gemma-based verifiers on algorithmic and grade-school math reasoning tasks, GenRM outperforms discriminative verifiers and LLM-as-a-Judge, showing a 16-64% improvement in the percentage of problems solved with Best-of-N. Furthermore, we show that GenRM scales favorably across dataset size, model capacity, and inference-time compute.

Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Size

In this work, we introduce Gemma 2, a new addition to the Gemma family of lightweight, state-of-the-art open models, ranging in scale from 2 billion to 27 billion parameters. In this new version, we apply several known technical modifications to the Transformer architecture, such as interleaving local-global attentions (Beltagy et al., 2020a) and group-query attention (Ainslie et al., 2023). We also train the 2B and 9B models with knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) instead of next token prediction. The resulting models deliver the best performance for their size, and even offer competitive alternatives to models that are 2-3 times bigger. We release all our models to the community.

Don't Throw Away Data: Better Sequence Knowledge Distillation

A critical component in knowledge distillation is the means of coupling the teacher and student. The predominant sequence knowledge distillation method involves supervised learning of the student against teacher-decoded outputs, and is exemplified by the current state of the art, which incorporates minimum Bayes risk (MBR) decoding. In this paper we seek to integrate MBR more tightly in distillation training, specifically by using several high scoring MBR translations, rather than a single selected sequence, thus capturing a rich diversity of teacher outputs. Our experiments on English to German and English to Japanese translation show consistent improvements over strong baseline methods for both tasks and with varying model sizes. Additionally, we conduct a detailed analysis focusing on data efficiency and capacity curse aspects to elucidate MBR-n and explore its further potential.

On scalable oversight with weak LLMs judging strong LLMs

Scalable oversight protocols aim to enable humans to accurately supervise superhuman AI. In this paper we study debate, where two AI's compete to convince a judge; consultancy, where a single AI tries to convince a judge that asks questions; and compare to a baseline of direct question-answering, where the judge just answers outright without the AI. We use large language models (LLMs) as both AI agents and as stand-ins for human judges, taking the judge models to be weaker than agent models. We benchmark on a diverse range of asymmetries between judges and agents, extending previous work on a single extractive QA task with information asymmetry, to also include mathematics, coding, logic and multimodal reasoning asymmetries. We find that debate outperforms consultancy across all tasks when the consultant is randomly assigned to argue for the correct/incorrect answer. Comparing debate to direct question answering, the results depend on the type of task: in extractive QA tasks with information asymmetry debate outperforms direct question answering, but in other tasks without information asymmetry the results are mixed. Previous work assigned debaters/consultants an answer to argue for. When we allow them to instead choose which answer to argue for, we find judges are less frequently convinced by the wrong answer in debate than in consultancy. Further, we find that stronger debater models increase judge accuracy, though more modestly than in previous studies.