Skip to main content

​
Aligning Models with Human Values via RLHF

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) represents an advanced fine-tuning approach that shapes model behavior according to human preferences. This process typically follows initial supervised training and aims to align model outputs with human values, safety requirements, and desired behaviors.
RLHF has been instrumental in creating helpful, harmless, and honest AI assistants by incorporating human judgment directly into the training process.

​
The RLHF Workflow

The RLHF process comprises several key stages:
1

Preference Collection

Models generate multiple responses per prompt, which humans then rank or rate based on quality criteria.
Preferences often use 1-7 Likert scales, potentially broken down by attributes like accuracy, usefulness, and tone.
2

Reward Model Training

A separate model learns to predict human preferences based on the collected ranking data.
3

Policy Optimization

The main model is updated using reinforcement learning algorithms to maximize the predicted reward.

​
Preference Data Collection

​
Response Generation and Ranking

For each prompt, the model generates multiple candidate responses that annotators evaluate: 
{
  "prompt": "Explain quantum computing to a beginner",
  "responses": [
    {
      "text": "Quantum computing uses quantum bits...",
      "rank": 1
    },
    {
      "text": "Think of it like a super powerful computer...",
      "rank": 2
    },
    {
      "text": "Quantum computers are machines that...",
      "rank": 3
    }
  ]
}

​
Evaluation Criteria

Human annotators typically assess responses across multiple dimensions:
  • Accuracy
  • Helpfulness
  • Safety
  • Style
  • Factual correctness
  • Logical consistency
  • Completeness of information
  • Absence of hallucinations

​
Model Optimization Approaches

​
Traditional RLHF Pipeline

The reward model learns to predict human preferences:
# Conceptual reward model training
def train_reward_model(preference_data):
    for prompt, response_a, response_b, preference in preference_data:
        score_a = reward_model(prompt, response_a)
        score_b = reward_model(prompt, response_b)
        loss = compute_ranking_loss(score_a, score_b, preference)
        optimize(loss)
Key considerations:
  • Requires substantial preference data (typically 50K+ comparisons)
  • Model architecture often mirrors the base model
  • Calibration is crucial for accurate reward prediction
PPO updates the main model using the reward signal:
# Simplified PPO update
def ppo_update(model, reward_model, prompts):
    for prompt in prompts:
        response = model.generate(prompt)
        reward = reward_model(prompt, response)
        advantage = compute_advantage(reward)
        update_policy(model, advantage, kl_constraint)
Challenges:
  • Computationally intensive
  • Requires careful hyperparameter tuning
  • Risk of reward hacking

​
Resource Requirements and Considerations

​
When to Use RLHF

Ideal Use Cases

  • General-purpose assistants
  • Safety-critical applications
  • Complex subjective tasks
  • High-stakes decision support

Consider Alternatives

  • Narrow domain applications
  • Objective task optimization
  • Limited annotation budget
  • Rapid prototyping needs

​
Best Practices for Preference Data

1

Annotator Training

Develop comprehensive guidelines and training programs:
  • Clear rating criteria
  • Example comparisons
  • Edge case handling
  • Consistency checks
2

Quality Control

Implement robust quality assurance:
  • Inter-rater reliability metrics
  • Golden standard examples
  • Regular calibration sessions
  • Outlier detection
3

Diversity Considerations

Ensure representative feedback:
  • Diverse annotator backgrounds
  • Multiple geographic regions
  • Various use case scenarios
  • Different user personas
4

Iterative Refinement

Continuously improve the process:
  • Regular guideline updates
  • Feedback incorporation
  • Performance monitoring
  • A/B testing of criteria

​
Continuous Learning from Deployment

Post-deployment user interactions provide valuable preference data for ongoing alignment improvements.

​
Feedback Collection Strategies

Explicit Feedback

  • Rating buttons
  • Detailed feedback forms
  • Comparison interfaces
  • Issue reporting

Implicit Signals

  • Engagement metrics
  • Regeneration requests
  • Copy/paste behavior
  • Session duration
⌘I