Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
                                            Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                            
                                                
                                             What is a DOI Number?
                                        
                                    
                                
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
- 
            Large language models are typically aligned with human preferences by optimizing reward models (RMs) fitted to human feedback. However, human preferences are multi-faceted, and it is increasingly common to derive reward from a composition of simpler reward models which each capture a different aspect of language quality. This itself presents a challenge, as it is difficult to appropriately weight these component RMs when combining them. Compounding this difficulty, because any RM is only a proxy for human evaluation, this process is vulnerable to overoptimization, wherein past a certain point, accumulating higher reward is associated with worse human ratings. In this paper, we perform, to our knowledge, the first study on overoptimization in composite RMs, showing that correlation between component RMs has a significant effect on the locations of these points. We then introduce an approach to solve this issue using constrained reinforcement learning as a means of preventing the agent from exceeding each RM’s threshold of usefulness. Our method addresses the problem of weighting component RMs by learning dynamic weights, naturally expressed by Lagrange multipliers. As a result, each RM stays within the range at which it is an effective proxy, improving evaluation performance. Finally, we introduce an adaptive method using gradient-free optimization to identify and optimize towards these points during a single run.more » « less
- 
            The information bottleneck (IB) approach to clustering takes a joint distribution [Formula: see text] and maps the data [Formula: see text] to cluster labels [Formula: see text], which retain maximal information about [Formula: see text] (Tishby, Pereira, & Bialek, 1999 ). This objective results in an algorithm that clusters data points based on the similarity of their conditional distributions [Formula: see text]. This is in contrast to classic geometric clustering algorithms such as [Formula: see text]-means and gaussian mixture models (GMMs), which take a set of observed data points [Formula: see text] and cluster them based on their geometric (typically Euclidean) distance from one another. Here, we show how to use the deterministic information bottleneck (DIB) (Strouse & Schwab, 2017 ), a variant of IB, to perform geometric clustering by choosing cluster labels that preserve information about data point location on a smoothed data set. We also introduce a novel intuitive method to choose the number of clusters via kinks in the information curve. We apply this approach to a variety of simple clustering problems, showing that DIB with our model selection procedure recovers the generative cluster labels. We also show that, in particular limits of our model parameters, clustering with DIB and IB is equivalent to [Formula: see text]-means and EM fitting of a GMM with hard and soft assignments, respectively. Thus, clustering with (D)IB generalizes and provides an information-theoretic perspective on these classic algorithms.more » « less
 An official website of the United States government
An official website of the United States government 
				
			 
					 
					
 
                                     Full Text Available
                                                Full Text Available