Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
133 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Stepwise Alignment for Constrained Language Model Policy Optimization (2404.11049v3)

Published 17 Apr 2024 in cs.LG, cs.AI, and cs.CL

Abstract: Safety and trustworthiness are indispensable requirements for real-world applications of AI systems using LLMs. This paper formulates human value alignment as an optimization problem of the LLM policy to maximize reward under a safety constraint, and then proposes an algorithm, Stepwise Alignment for Constrained Policy Optimization (SACPO). One key idea behind SACPO, supported by theory, is that the optimal policy incorporating reward and safety can be directly obtained from a reward-aligned policy. Building on this key idea, SACPO aligns LLMs step-wise with each metric while leveraging simple yet powerful alignment algorithms such as direct preference optimization (DPO). SACPO offers several advantages, including simplicity, stability, computational efficiency, and flexibility of algorithms and datasets. Under mild assumptions, our theoretical analysis provides the upper bounds on optimality and safety constraint violation. Our experimental results show that SACPO can fine-tune Alpaca-7B better than the state-of-the-art method in terms of both helpfulness and harmlessness.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (49)
  1. Back to basics: Revisiting REINFORCE style optimization for learning from human feedback in LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14740, 2024.
  2. E. Altman. Constrained Markov decision processes. Routledge, 2021.
  3. Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565, 2016.
  4. A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12036, 2023.
  5. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862, 2022.
  6. D. P. Bertsekas. Constrained optimization and Lagrange multiplier methods. Academic press, 2014.
  7. N. Bostrom and E. Yudkowsky. The ethics of artificial intelligence. In Artificial intelligence safety and security, pages 57–69. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018.
  8. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39(3/4):324–345, 1952.
  9. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712, 2023.
  10. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021.
  11. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  12. Safe RLHF: Safe reinforcement learning from human feedback. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024.
  13. Provably efficient safe exploration via primal-dual policy optimization. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), pages 3304–3312, 2021.
  14. Last-iterate convergent policy gradient primal-dual methods for constrained MDPs. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 36, 2024.
  15. KTO: Model alignment as prospect theoretic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01306, 2024.
  16. Pal: Program-aided language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 10764–10799, 2023.
  17. Realtoxicityprompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.11462, 2020.
  18. Arcee’s mergekit: A toolkit for merging large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13257, 2024.
  19. Beavertails: Towards improved safety alignment of LLM via a human-preference dataset. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 36, 2024.
  20. Provably efficient reinforcement learning with linear function approximation. In Conference on Learning Theory (COLT), pages 2137–2143. PMLR, 2020.
  21. Understanding the effects of RLHF on LLM generalisation and diversity. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023.
  22. Batch policy learning under constraints. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 3703–3712, 2019.
  23. A contextual-bandit approach to personalized news article recommendation. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, pages 661–670, 2010.
  24. AlpacaEval: An automatic evaluator of instruction-following models. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/alpaca_eval, 2023.
  25. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07958, 2021.
  26. Mitigating political bias in language models through reinforced calibration. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2021.
  27. Trustworthy llms: a survey and guideline for evaluating large language models’ alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05374, 2023.
  28. Enhancing LLM safety via constrained direct preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02475, 2024.
  29. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730–27744, 2022.
  30. Safe policies for reinforcement learning via primal-dual methods. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 68(3):1321–1336, 2022.
  31. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18290, 2023.
  32. Benchmarking safe exploration in deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01708, 2019.
  33. Verbosity bias in preference labeling by large language models. In NeurIPS 2023 Workshop on Instruction Tuning and Instruction Following, 2023.
  34. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017.
  35. Lm-nav: Robotic navigation with large pre-trained models of language, vision, and action. In Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), pages 492–504. PMLR, 2023.
  36. A long way to go: Investigating length correlations in RLHF. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03716, 2023.
  37. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:3008–3021, 2020.
  38. Mitigating gender bias in natural language processing: Literature review. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2019.
  39. Decodingtrust: A comprehensive assessment of trustworthiness in GPT models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11698, 2023.
  40. Beyond reverse KL: Generalizing direct preference optimization with diverse divergence constraints. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024.
  41. R. J. Williams. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Machine learning, 8:229–256, 1992.
  42. Model soups: averaging weights of multiple fine-tuned models improves accuracy without increasing inference time. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 23965–23998, 2022.
  43. Iterative preference learning from human feedback: Bridging theory and practice for RLHF under KL-constraint. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11456, 2023.
  44. Wordcraft: story writing with large language models. In International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pages 841–852, 2022.
  45. Prompting large language model for machine translation: A case study. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 41092–41110, 2023.
  46. Panacea: Pareto alignment via preference adaptation for LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02030, 2024.
  47. Beyond one-preference-for-all: Multi-objective direct preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03708, 2023.
  48. Fine-tuning language models from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08593, 2019.
  49. M. Zinkevich. Online convex programming and generalized infinitesimal gradient ascent. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 928–936, 2003.
Citations (2)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

  • The paper formulates the alignment challenge as a constrained optimization, balancing reward maximization with essential safety constraints.
  • The introduced SACPO method performs iterative alignment across different metrics to achieve near-optimal model performance with theoretical guarantees.
  • The approach's flexibility in using diverse algorithms and datasets enables enhanced safety and efficacy for real-world AI applications.

Stepwise Alignment for Constrained LLM Policy Optimization

The paper "Stepwise Alignment for Constrained LLM Policy Optimization" introduces an innovative approach to address the challenge of aligning LLMs with human values while maintaining their safety and efficacy in real-world applications. The paper focuses on a novel algorithm named Stepwise Alignment for Constrained Policy Optimization (SACPO), which seeks to optimize LLM policies by balancing reward maximization and adherence to safety constraints.

LLMs have demonstrated a wide range of capabilities across various applications, such as translation, content creation, and summarization. However, their safety and trustworthiness remain paramount concerns, especially when they permeate into systems that interact closely with human users. Traditional methods like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) primarily focus on aligning models with human preferences but often lack the ability to effectively incorporate multiple safety constraints into the alignment process.

Key Contributions

  1. Constrained LLM Policy Optimization: The paper formulates the problem of aligning human values as a constrained optimization problem. It considers both reward maximization and safety constraints, effectively turning it into a multi-objective optimization challenge.
  2. Stepwise Alignment Approach: The central idea of SACPO is to perform alignment stepwise across different metrics, primarily reward and safety, without the need for simultaneous optimization. This is theoretically grounded by showing that the optimal constrained policy can be derived by realigning a reward-aligned policy according to safety constraints.
  3. Flexibility and Simplicity: By allowing the use of diverse algorithms (e.g., Direct Preference Optimization, Kahneman-Tversky Optimization) and datasets for each alignment step, SACPO offers enhanced flexibility. This adaptability is crucial when different datasets or learning strategies are better suited for optimizing distinct facets of model alignment.
  4. Theoretical Guarantees: The paper provides theoretical bounds on the near-optimality and safety constraint violations of the aligned model, underpinning the soundness of SACPO's methodology.
  5. Empirical Evaluation: Experimental results highlight SACPO's capability to fine-tune Alpaca-7B models beyond existing methods like Safe RLHF, achieving superior performance in helpfulness and harmlessness metrics.

Implications and Future Directions

The implications of SACPO extend to the broader field of AI alignment. The ability to separate and sequentially address different aspects of model alignment could significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of aligning LLMs with complex and multifaceted human values. This stepwise methodology could lead to more stable training processes and allow developers to selectively prioritize different metrics depending on the application context.

In terms of practical applications, the potential for using different datasets and algorithms enhances the adaptability of SACPO to various operational settings. Additionally, the introduction of a theoretically robust yet straightforward algorithm could lower the barrier for integrating advanced AI systems into more safety-critical domains, such as healthcare or autonomous systems.

Looking forward, further refinement of the algorithm could consider more nuanced safety constraints or introduce additional metrics relevant to ethical AI deployment. Future research may also explore the dynamic adjustment of alignment steps, allowing for real-time flexibility in responding to changing safety and performance requirements.

In summary, this paper contributes significantly to the domain of AI alignment, proposing a robust and flexible framework for enhancing the safety and utility of LLMs, which are increasingly integral to modern AI applications.

File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com PDF File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Markdown
Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

YouTube