Our new X account is live! Follow @wizwand_team for updates
WorkDL logo mark

Provably Robust DPO: Aligning Language Models with Noisy Feedback

About

Learning from preference-based feedback has recently gained traction as a promising approach to align language models with human interests. While these aligned generative models have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various tasks, their dependence on high-quality human preference data poses a bottleneck in practical applications. Specifically, noisy (incorrect and ambiguous) preference pairs in the dataset might restrict the language models from capturing human intent accurately. While practitioners have recently proposed heuristics to mitigate the effect of noisy preferences, a complete theoretical understanding of their workings remain elusive. In this work, we aim to bridge this gap by by introducing a general framework for policy optimization in the presence of random preference flips. We focus on the direct preference optimization (DPO) algorithm in particular since it assumes that preferences adhere to the Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) model, raising concerns about the impact of noisy data on the learned policy. We design a novel loss function, which de-bias the effect of noise on average, making a policy trained by minimizing that loss robust to the noise. Under log-linear parameterization of the policy class and assuming good feature coverage of the SFT policy, we prove that the sub-optimality gap of the proposed robust DPO (rDPO) policy compared to the optimal policy is of the order $O(\frac{1}{1-2\epsilon}\sqrt{\frac{d}{n}})$, where $\epsilon < 1/2$ is flip rate of labels, $d$ is policy parameter dimension and $n$ is size of dataset. Our experiments on IMDb sentiment generation and Anthropic's helpful-harmless dataset show that rDPO is robust to noise in preference labels compared to vanilla DPO and other heuristics proposed by practitioners.

Sayak Ray Chowdhury, Anush Kini, Nagarajan Natarajan• 2024

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
LLM Alignment EvaluationAlpacaEval 2.0 (test)
LC Win Rate28.66
51
Medical Image SegmentationJSRT
IoU75.5
38
Safety AlignmentPKU-SafeRLHF 30K (IID)
WR82.74
36
Safety AlignmentDo-Not-Answer
MD1.17
36
Safety AlignmentHH-RLHF
MD Rate5.92
36
Safety AlignmentSalad Bench
MD4.19
36
Medical Image SegmentationACDC Weak Base Nseg=3
IoU0.718
19
Medical Image SegmentationACDC Strong Base Nseg=5
IoU74.6
19
Safety AlignmentAverage (Do-Not-Answer, HarmBench, HH-RLHF, Salad Bench)
Aggregate Score3.27
18
Safety AlignmentHarmBench
MD Score6
18
Showing 10 of 10 rows

Other info

Follow for update