Despite the success of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) in aligning language models with human values, reward hacking, also termed reward overoptimization, remains a critical challenge. This issue primarily arises from reward misgeneralization, where reward models (RMs) compute reward using spurious features that are irrelevant to human preferences. In this work, we tackle this problem from an information-theoretic perspective and propose a framework for reward modeling, namely InfoRM, by introducing a variational information bottleneck objective to filter out irrelevant information.Notably, we further identify a correlation between overoptimization and outliers in the IB latent space of InfoRM, establishing it as a promising tool for detecting reward overoptimization.Inspired by this finding, we propose the Cluster Separation Index (CSI), which quantifies deviations in the IB latent space, as an indicator of reward overoptimization to facilitate the development of online mitigation strategies. Extensive experiments on a wide range of settings and RM scales (70M, 440M, 1.4B, and 7B) demonstrate the effectiveness of InfoRM. Further analyses reveal that InfoRM's overoptimization detection mechanism is not only effective but also robust across a broad range of datasets, signifying a notable advancement in the field of RLHF. The code will be released upon acceptance.

With the advent of large language models (LLMs), reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as a pivotal technological paradigm to align models' behaviors with human values [

With the advent of large language models (LLMs), reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as a pivotal technological paradigm to align models' behaviors with human values [

Despite the success of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) in aligning language models with human values, reward hacking, also termed reward overoptimization, remains a critical challenge. This issue primarily arises from reward misgeneralization, where reward models (RMs) compute reward using spurious features that are irrelevant to human preferences. In this work, we tackle this problem from an information-theoretic perspective and propose a framework for reward modeling, namely InfoRM, by introducing a variational information bottleneck objective to filter out irrelevant information.Notably, we further identify a correlation between overoptimization and outliers in the IB latent space of InfoRM, establishing it as a promising tool for detecting reward overoptimization.Inspired by this finding, we propose the Cluster Separation Index (CSI), which quantifies deviations in the IB latent space, as an indicator of reward overoptimization to facilitate the development of online mitigation strategies. Extensive experiments on a wide range of settings and RM scales (70M, 440M, 1.4B, and 7B) demonstrate the effectiveness of InfoRM. Further analyses reveal that InfoRM's overoptimization detection mechanism is not only effective but also robust across a broad range of datasets, signifying a notable advancement in the field of RLHF.

Reward models (RMs) play a crucial role in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), aligning model behavior with human preferences. However, existing benchmarks for reward models show a weak correlation with the performance of optimized policies, suggesting that they fail to accurately assess the true capabilities of RMs. To bridge this gap, we explore several evaluation designs through the lens of reward overoptimization\textemdash a phenomenon that captures both how well the reward model aligns with human preferences and the dynamics of the learning signal it provides to the policy. The results highlight three key findings on how to construct a reliable benchmark: (i) it is important to minimize differences between chosen and rejected responses beyond correctness, (ii) evaluating reward models requires multiple comparisons across a wide range of chosen and rejected responses, and (iii) given that reward models encounter responses with diverse representations, responses should be sourced from a variety of models. However, we also observe that a extremely high correlation with degree of overoptimization leads to comparatively lower correlation with certain downstream performance. Thus, when designing a benchmark, it is desirable to use the degree of overoptimization as a useful tool, rather than the end goal.

Radiologists play a crucial role by translating medical images into medical reports. However, the field faces staffing shortages and increasing workloads. While automated approaches using vision-language models (VLMs) show promise as assistants, they require exceptionally high accuracy. Most current VLMs in radiology rely solely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT). Meanwhile, in the general domain, additional preference fine-tuning has become standard practice. The challenge in radiology lies in the prohibitive cost of obtaining radiologist feedback. We propose a scalable automated preference alignment technique for VLMs in radiology, focusing on chest X-ray (CXR) report generation. Our method leverages publicly available datasets with an LLM-as-a-Judge mechanism, eliminating the need for additional expert radiologist feedback. We evaluate and benchmark five direct alignment algorithms (DAAs). Our results show up to a 57.4% improvement in average GREEN scores, a LLM-based metric for evaluating CXR reports, and a 9.2% increase in an average across six metrics (domain specific and general), compared to the SFT baseline. We study reward overoptimization via length exploitation, with reports lengthening by up to 3.2x. To assess a potential alignment tax, we benchmark on six additional diverse tasks, finding no significant degradations. A reader study involving four board-certified radiologists indicates win rates of up to 0.62 over the SFT baseline, while significantly penalizing verbosity. Our analysis provides actionable insights for the development of VLMs in high-stakes fields like radiology.

Reward models are key in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) systems, aligning the model behavior with human preferences. Particularly in the math domain, there have been plenty of studies using reward models to align policies for improving reasoning capabilities. Recently, as the importance of reward models has been emphasized, RewardBench is proposed to understand their behavior. However, we figure out that the math subset of RewardBench has different representations between chosen and rejected completions, and relies on a single comparison, which may lead to unreliable results as it only see an isolated case. Therefore, it fails to accurately present the robustness of reward models, leading to a misunderstanding of its performance and potentially resulting in reward hacking. In this work, we introduce a new design for reliable evaluation of reward models, and to validate this, we construct RewardMATH, a benchmark that effectively represents the robustness of reward models in mathematical reasoning tasks. We demonstrate that the scores on RewardMATH strongly correlate with the results of optimized policy and effectively estimate reward overoptimization, whereas the existing benchmark shows almost no correlation. The results underscore the potential of our design to enhance the reliability of evaluation, and represent the robustness of reward model. We make our code and data publicly available.

To ensure that large language model (LLM) responses are helpful and non-toxic, a reward model trained on human preference data is usually used. LLM responses with high rewards are then selected through best-of-$n$ (BoN) sampling or the LLM is further optimized to produce responses with high rewards through reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). However, these processes are susceptible to reward overoptimization or `hacking', where responses receive high rewards due to imperfections in the reward model rather than true preference, particularly as prompts or responses deviate from the training data. To address these challenges, we propose to train a Bayesian reward model, which signals higher uncertainty further from the training data distribution. We trained Bayesian reward models using Laplace approximation on LoRA weights, and found that the resulting uncertainty estimates can effectively mitigate reward overoptimization in BoN sampling.

Despite the success of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) in aligning language models with human values, reward hacking, also termed reward overoptimization, remains a critical challenge, which primarily stems from limitations in reward modeling, i.e., generalizability of the reward model and inconsistency in the preference dataset. In this work, we tackle this problem from an information theoretic-perspective, and propose a generalizable and robust framework for reward modeling, namely InfoRM, by introducing a variational information bottleneck objective to filter out irrelevant information and developing a mechanism for model complexity modulation. Notably, we further identify a correlation between overoptimization and outliers in the latent space, establishing InfoRM as a promising tool for detecting reward overoptimization. Inspired by this finding, we propose the Integrated Cluster Deviation Score (ICDS), which quantifies deviations in the latent space, as an indicator of reward overoptimization to facilitate the development of online mitigation strategies. Extensive experiments on a wide range of settings and model scales (70M, 440M, 1.4B, and 7B) support the effectiveness of InfoRM. Further analyses reveal that InfoRM's overoptimization detection mechanism is effective, potentially signifying a notable advancement in the field of RLHF. Code will be released upon acceptance.

Bridging the gap between diffusion models and human preferences is crucial for their integration into practical generative workflows. While optimizing downstream reward models has emerged as a promising alignment strategy, concerns arise regarding the risk of excessive optimization with learned reward models, which potentially compromises ground-truth performance. In this work, we confront the reward overoptimization problem in diffusion model alignment through the lenses of both inductive and primacy biases. We first identify the divergence of current methods from the temporal inductive bias inherent in the multi-step denoising process of diffusion models as a potential source of overoptimization. Then, we surprisingly discover that dormant neurons in our critic model act as a regularization against overoptimization, while active neurons reflect primacy bias in this setting. Motivated by these observations, we propose Temporal Diffusion Policy Optimization with critic active neuron Reset (TDPO-R), a policy gradient algorithm that exploits the temporal inductive bias of intermediate timesteps, along with a novel reset strategy that targets active neurons to counteract the primacy bias. Empirical results demonstrate the superior efficacy of our algorithms in mitigating reward overoptimization.