On the challenges and practices of reinforcement learning from real human feedback
Abstract
Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is a variant of reinforcement learning (RL) that does not require an engineered reward function but instead learns from human feedback. Due to its increasing popularity, various authors have studied how to learn an accurate reward model from only few samples, making optimal use of this feedback. Because of the cost and complexity of user studies, however, this research is often conducted with synthetic human feedback. Such feedback can be generated by evaluating behavior based on ground-truth rewards which are available for some benchmark tasks. While this setting can help evaluate some aspects of RLHF, it differs from practical settings in which synthetic feedback is not available. Working with real human feedback brings additional challenges that cannot be observed with synthetic feedback, including fatigue, inter-rater inconsistencies, delay, misunderstandings, and modality-dependent difficulties. We describe and discuss some of these challenges together with current practices and opportunities for further research in this paper.
Study specs
- Authors
- T Kaufmann,S Ball,J Beck,E Hüllermeier
- Year
- 2023
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source DOI Google Scholar
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.