Eliminating Biased Length Reliance of Direct Preference Optimization via Down-Sampled KL Divergence
About
Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has emerged as a prominent algorithm for the direct and robust alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences, offering a more straightforward alternative to the complex Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). Despite its promising efficacy, DPO faces a notable drawback: "verbosity", a common over-optimization phenomenon also observed in RLHF. While previous studies mainly attributed verbosity to biased labels within the data, we propose that the issue also stems from an inherent algorithmic length reliance in DPO. Specifically, we suggest that the discrepancy between sequence-level Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergences between chosen and rejected sequences, used in DPO, results in overestimated or underestimated rewards due to varying token lengths. Empirically, we utilize datasets with different label lengths to demonstrate the presence of biased rewards. We then introduce an effective downsampling approach, named SamPO, to eliminate potential length reliance. Our experimental evaluations, conducted across three LLMs of varying scales and a diverse array of conditional and open-ended benchmarks, highlight the efficacy of SamPO in mitigating verbosity, achieving improvements of 5% to 12% over DPO through debaised rewards. Our codes can be accessed at: https://github.com/LuJunru/SamPO/.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multi-turn Dialogue Evaluation | MT-Bench | Overall Score8.21 | 331 | |
| Physical Commonsense Reasoning | PIQA | Accuracy80.74 | 329 | |
| Instruction Following | IFEval | -- | 292 | |
| Mathematical Reasoning | GSM8K | EM61.33 | 115 | |
| LLM Alignment Evaluation | AlpacaEval 2.0 (test) | LC Win Rate27.45 | 51 | |
| Language Understanding | MMLU | MMLU Score70.67 | 45 | |
| Scientific Reasoning | ARC | Score86.32 | 29 | |
| Instruction Following | AlpacaEval UltraFeedback 2 (test) | LC Win Rate52.17 | 12 | |
| Instruction Following | AlpacaEval Helpsteer2 2 (test) | LC Win Rate26.95 | 12 | |
| Truthfulness Evaluation | TruthfulQA | Normalized Accuracy58.44 | 10 |