The Accuracy Paradox in RLHF: When Better Reward Models Don't Yield Better Language Models
<|reference_start|>The Accuracy Paradox in RLHF: When Better Reward Models Don't Yield Better Language Models: Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback significantly enhances Natural Language Processing by aligning language models with human expectations. A critical factor in this alignment is the strength of reward models used during training. This study explores whether stronger reward models invariably lead to better language models. In this paper, through experiments on relevance, factuality, and completeness tasks using the QA-FEEDBACK dataset and reward models based on Longformer, we uncover a surprising paradox: language models trained with moderately accurate reward models outperform those guided by highly accurate ones. This challenges the widely held belief that stronger reward models always lead to better language models, and opens up new avenues for future research into the key factors driving model performance and how to choose the most suitable reward models. Code and additional details are available at [https://github.com/EIT-NLP/AccuracyParadox-RLHF](https://github.com/EIT-NLP/AccuracyParadox-RLHF).<|reference_end|>
@article{chen2024the,
    title={The Accuracy Paradox in RLHF: When Better Reward Models Don't Yield
  Better Language Models},
    author={Yanjun Chen, Dawei Zhu, Yirong Sun, Xinghao Chen, Wei Zhang, Xiaoyu
  Shen},
    journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06554},
    year={2024},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    eprint={2410.06554},
    primaryClass={cs.CL cs.AI}
}