|
--- |
|
license: mit |
|
datasets: |
|
- openai/summarize_from_feedback |
|
- openai/webgpt_comparisons |
|
- Dahoas/synthetic-instruct-gptj-pairwise |
|
- Anthropic/hh-rlhf |
|
- lmsys/chatbot_arena_conversations |
|
- openbmb/UltraFeedback |
|
metrics: |
|
- accuracy |
|
tags: |
|
- reward_model |
|
- reward-model |
|
- RLHF |
|
- evaluation |
|
- llm |
|
- instruction |
|
- reranking |
|
language: |
|
- en |
|
pipeline_tag: text-generation |
|
--- |
|
|
|
# Pairwise Reward Model for LLMs (PairRM) from LLM-Blender |
|
|
|
|
|
- Github: [https://github.com/yuchenlin/LLM-Blender](https://github.com/yuchenlin/LLM-Blender) |
|
- Paper: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02561](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02561) |
|
- Space Demo: [https://huggingface.co/spaces/llm-blender/LLM-Blender](https://huggingface.co/spaces/llm-blender/LLM-Blender) |
|
|
|
|
|
## News |
|
|
|
- Check out our results on AlpacaEval leaderboard: [Twitter](https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1732198787354067380?s=20) [Leaderboard](https://tatsu-lab.github.io/alpaca_eval/) |
|
|
|
## Introduction |
|
|
|
Pairwise Reward Model (PairRM) takes an instruction and a **pair** of output candidates as the input, |
|
and output a score for each candidate to measure their **relative** quality. |
|
PairRM can be used to (re-)rank a list of candidate outputs and thus can be used an LLM evaluator to efficiently assess the quality of LLMs in local environment. |
|
PairRM can also be used to enhance the decoding by `best-of-n sampling` (i.e., reranking N sampled outputs). |
|
Apart from that, one can also use PairRM to further align instruction-tuned LLMs with RLHF methods. |
|
|
|
Unlike the other RMs that encode and score each candidate respectively, |
|
PairRM takes a pair of candidates and compares them side-by-side to indentify the subtle differences between them. |
|
Also, PairRM is based on [`microsoft/deberta-v3-large`](https://huggingface.co/microsoft/deberta-v3-large), and thus it is super efficient: **0.4B**. |
|
We trained PairRM on a diverse collection of six human-preference datasets (see more [here](https://huggingface.co/llm-blender/PairRM#training-datasets)). |
|
|
|
PairRM is part of the LLM-Blender project (ACL 2023). Please see our [paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02561) above to know more. |
|
|
|
|
|
## Installation |
|
|
|
- First install `llm-blender` |
|
```bash |
|
pip install git+https://github.com/yuchenlin/LLM-Blender.git |
|
``` |
|
|
|
- Then load PairRM: |
|
```python |
|
import llm_blender |
|
blender = llm_blender.Blender() |
|
blender.loadranker("llm-blender/PairRM") # load PairRM |
|
``` |
|
|
|
|
|
## Usage |
|
|
|
### Use Case 1: Comparing/Ranking output candidates given an instruction |
|
|
|
- Ranking a list candidate responses |
|
|
|
```python |
|
inputs = ["hello, how are you!", "I love you!"] |
|
candidates_texts = [["get out!", "hi! I am fine, thanks!", "bye!"], |
|
["I love you too!", "I hate you!", "Thanks! You're a good guy!"]] |
|
ranks = blender.rank(inputs, candidates_texts, return_scores=False, batch_size=1) |
|
# ranks is a list of ranks |
|
# ranks[i][j] represents the ranks of candidate-j for input-i |
|
""" |
|
ranks --> |
|
array([[3, 1, 2], # it means "hi! I am fine, thanks!" ranks the 1st, "bye" ranks the 2nd, and "get out!" ranks the 3rd. |
|
[1, 3, 2]], # it means "I love you too"! ranks the the 1st, and "I hate you!" ranks the 3rd. |
|
dtype=int32) |
|
|
|
""" |
|
``` |
|
|
|
- Directly comparing two candidate responses |
|
```python |
|
inputs = ["hello!", "I love you!"] |
|
candidates_A = ["hi!", "I hate you!"] |
|
candidates_B = ["f**k off!", "I love you, too!"] |
|
comparison_results = blender.compare(inputs, candidates_A, candidates_B) |
|
# comparison_results is a list of bool, where comparison_results[i] denotes |
|
# whether candidates_A[i] is better than candidates_B[i] for inputs[i] |
|
# Example: comparison_results[0]--> True |
|
``` |
|
|
|
<details><summary> Comparing two multi-turn conversations. </summary> |
|
|
|
```python |
|
conv1 = [ |
|
{ |
|
"content": "hello", |
|
"role": "USER" |
|
}, |
|
{ |
|
"content": "[assistant1‘s response 1]", |
|
"role": "ASSISTANT" |
|
}, |
|
... |
|
] |
|
conv2 = [ |
|
{ |
|
"content": "hello", |
|
"role": "USER" |
|
}, |
|
{ |
|
"content": "[assistant2's response 1]", |
|
"role": "ASSISTANT" |
|
}, |
|
... |
|
] |
|
comparison_results = blender.compare_conversations([conv1], [conv2]) |
|
# comparison_results is a list of bool, where each element denotes whether all the responses in conv1 together is better than that of conv2 |
|
``` |
|
</details> |
|
|
|
|
|
### Use Case 2: Best-of-n Sampling (Decoding Enhancment) |
|
|
|
**Best-of-n Sampling**, aka, rejection sampling, is a strategy to enhance the response quality by selecting the one that was ranked highest by the reward model |
|
(see more in [OpenAI WebGPT section 3.2](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.09332.pdf) and [OpenAI Blog](https://openai.com/research/measuring-goodharts-law)). |
|
Best-of-n sampling with PairRM is a very easy way to imporve your LLMs with only a few changes of your inference code: |
|
|
|
```python |
|
# loading models |
|
import llm_blender |
|
from transformers import AutoTokenizer, AutoModelForCausalLM |
|
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained("HuggingFaceH4/zephyr-7b-beta") |
|
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained("HuggingFaceH4/zephyr-7b-beta", device_map="auto") |
|
system_message = {"role": "system", "content": "You are a friendly chatbot."} |
|
|
|
# formatting your inputs |
|
inputs = ["can you tell me a joke about OpenAI?"] |
|
messages = [[system_message, {"role": "user", "content": _input}] for _input in inputs] |
|
prompts = [tokenizer.apply_chat_template(m, tokenize=False, add_generation_prompt=True) for m in messages] |
|
|
|
# Conventional generation method |
|
input_ids = tokenizer(prompts[0], return_tensors="pt").input_ids |
|
sampled_outputs = model.generate(input_ids, do_sample=True, top_k=50, top_p=0.95, num_return_sequences=1) |
|
print(tokenizer.decode(sampled_outputs[0][len(input_ids[0]):], skip_special_tokens=False)) |
|
# --> The output could be a bad case such as a very short one, e.g., `Sure` |
|
|
|
# PairRM for best-of-n sampling |
|
blender = llm_blender.Blender() |
|
blender.loadranker("llm-blender/PairRM") # load ranker checkpoint |
|
outputs = blender.best_of_n_generate(model, tokenizer, prompts, n=10) |
|
|
|
print("### Prompt:\n", prompts[0]) |
|
print("### best-of-n generations:\n", outputs[0]) |
|
# --> The output will be much more stable and consistently better than single sampling, for example: |
|
""" |
|
Sure, here's a joke about OpenAI: |
|
|
|
Why did OpenAI decide to hire a mime as their new AI researcher? |
|
|
|
Because they wanted someone who could communicate complex ideas without making a sound! |
|
|
|
(Note: This is a joke, not a reflection of OpenAI's actual hiring practices.) |
|
""" |
|
``` |
|
|
|
### Use case 3: RLHF |
|
PairRM has been trained on various high-quality and large-scale datasets with human preference annotations |
|
and shown great correlation with human preferences with an extremely small model size (0.4B), |
|
approching the performance of GPT-4. |
|
PairRM will better help the future alignment of LLMs in a more efficient and effective way. |
|
With a `blender.compare()` function, you can apply PairRM to popular RLHF toolkits such as [trl](https://huggingface.co/docs/trl/index). |
|
|
|
**🔥 Check more details on our example jupyter notebook usage: [`blender_usage.ipynb`](https://github.com/yuchenlin/LLM-Blender/blob/main/blender_usage.ipynb)** |
|
|
|
|
|
Learn more in our LLM-Blender Github [README.md](https://github.com/yuchenlin/LLM-Blender#rank-and-fusion) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Statistics |
|
|
|
### Context length |
|
| PairRanker type | Source max length | Candidate max length | Total max length | |
|
|:-----------------:|:-----------------:|----------------------|------------------| |
|
| [pair-ranker](https://huggingface.co/llm-blender/pair-ranker) (our previous version) | 128 | 128 | 384 | |
|
| [PairRM](https://huggingface.co/llm-blender/pair-reward-model/) (This model) | 1224 | 412 | 2048 | |
|
|
|
### Training Datasets |
|
- [openai/summarize_from_feedback](https://huggingface.co/datasets/openai/summarize_from_feedback) |
|
- [openai/webgpt_comparisons](https://huggingface.co/datasets/openai/webgpt_comparisons) |
|
- [Dahoas/synthetic-instruct-gptj-pairwise](https://huggingface.co/datasets/Dahoas/synthetic-instruct-gptj-pairwise) |
|
- [Anthropic/hh-rlhf](https://huggingface.co/datasets/Anthropic/hh-rlhf) |
|
- [lmsys/chatbot_arena_conversations](https://huggingface.co/datasets/lmsys/chatbot_arena_conversations) |
|
- [openbmb/UltraFeedback](https://huggingface.co/datasets/openbmb/UltraFeedback) |
|
|
|
### Performance |
|
PairRM has been trained on various high-quality and large-scale dataset with human preference annotations and exhibits great correlation with human preferences |
|
with an extremly small model size (0.4B), approching the performance of GPT-4. |
|
|
|
We test the pairwise comparison on |
|
- [Auto-J pairwise testdata](https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/auto-j#pairwise-response-comparison) |
|
- [HHH-alignment](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HuggingFaceH4/hhh_alignment) |
|
- [MT-bench-human-judgements](https://huggingface.co/datasets/lmsys/mt_bench_human_judgments) |
|
|
|
All following results are reported as pairwise comparison accuracies (agreements). |
|
|
|
#### Auto-J Pairwise test data performance |
|
|
|
| Model | Summ | Exam | Code | Rewriting | Crea W | Func W | Comm | NLP | Overall | |
|
|:---------------------:|:---------:|:---------:|:---------:|:---------:|:---------:|:---------:|:-----:|:--------:|:---------:| |
|
| Closed -source Models | |
|
| ChatGPT | 33.3 | 40.3 | 36.6 | 31.6 | 48.2 | 40.4 | 47.6 | 45.8 | 42.7 | |
|
| Claude -2 | 30.6 | 36.1 | 41.7 | 34.2 | 48.1 | 42.5 | 40.6 | 48.5 | 42.4 | |
|
| GPT -4 | 59.7 | 51.4 | 69.2 | 58.3 | 66.7 | 60.4 | 58.3 | 65.2 | 61.9 | |
|
| Open -source Models | |
|
| SteamSHP | 33.3 | 29.2 | 26.7 | 33.3 | 40.7 | 31.3 | 51.4 | 51.9 | 40.6 | |
|
| PandaLM | 29.2 | 33.3 | 31.7 | 23.3 | 43.5 | 32.9 | 44.8 | 48.9 | 38.9 | |
|
| LLaMA -2-Chat -13B | 20.8 | 27.8 | 19.2 | 20 | 31.5 | 27.5 | 35.8 | 31.8 | 29 | |
|
| Vicuna -13B-v1.5 | 30.6 | 23.6 | 35 | 28.3 | 36.1 | 37.5 | 45.5 | 39.8 | 37.3 | |
|
| WizardLM -13B-v1.2 | 22.2 | 20.8 | 32.5 | 19.2 | 28.7 | 25.4 | 29.2 | 33 | 27.8 | |
|
| LLAMA -2-chat -70B | 34.7 | 33.3 | 36.7 | 35.8 | 51.4 | 54.2 | 47.2 | 47.7 | 45.9 | |
|
| AUTO -J (13b) | 45.8 | 38.9 | **59.2** | 47.5 | 54.6 | 57.1 | **58** | 57.6 | 54.8 | |
|
| UltraRM (13b) | 56.94 | 43.06 | 55.0 | 53.33 | **67.13** | **64.17** | 56.25 | 59.85 | **59.85** | |
|
| **PairRM (0.4b)** | **56.94** | **52.78** | 58.33 | **55.83** | 61.57 | 59.17 | 57.64 | **62.5** | 59.05 | |
|
|
|
#### HHH-Alignment and MT-bench human judgements |
|
|
|
| Evaluator LM | HHH ALIGNMENT | | | | | MT BENCH HUMAN JUDG . | |
|
|:-------------------------:|:-------------:|:---------:|:---------:|:--------:|:-----------:|:---------------------:| |
|
| | Help . | Harm . | Hon . | Other | Total Avg . | Human Preference | |
|
| RANDOM | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 34.26 | |
|
| STANFORDNLP REWARD MODEL | 69.49 | 60.34 | 52.46 | 51.16 | 58.82 | 44.79 | |
|
| ALMOST REWARD MODEL | 74.58 | 67.24 | 78.69 | 86.05 | 76.02 | 49.9 | |
|
| LLAMA2 -CHAT 7B | 66.1 | 81.03 | 70.49 | 74.42 | 72.85 | 51.78 | |
|
| LLAMA2 -CHAT 13B | 74.58 | 87.93 | 55.74 | 79.07 | 73.76 | 52.34 | |
|
| LLAMA2 -CHAT 70B | 66.1 | **89.66** | 67.21 | 74.42 | 74.21 | 53.67 | |
|
| LLAMA2 -CHAT 13B+COARSE . | 68.74 | 68.97 | 65.57 | 67.44 | 67.42 | 46.89 | |
|
| GPT -3.5-TURBO -0613 | 76.27 | 87.93 | 67.21 | 86.05 | 78.73 | 57.12 | |
|
| PROMETHEUS 7B | 69.49 | 84.48 | 78.69 | 90.7 | 80.09 | 55.14 | |
|
| PROMETHEUS 13B | 81.36 | 82.76 | 75.41 | 76.74 | 79.19 | 57.72 | |
|
| UltraRM (13B) | **86.44** | 79.31 | **81.97** | 88.37 | 83.71 | 56 | |
|
| **PairRM (0.4B)** | 84.75 | 84.48 | 80.33 | **90.7** | **84.62** | **59** | |
|
| GPT -4-0613 | 91.53 | 93.1 | 85.25 | 83.72 | 88.69 | 63.87 | |
|
|
|
**While PairRM is a extremely small model (0.4B) based on deberta, the pairwise comparison aggrement performance approches GPT-4's performance!** |
|
|
|
Two reasons to attribute: |
|
- Our PairRM specically designed model arch for pairwise comparison through bidirectional attention (See LLM-blender paper for more details) |
|
- The high-quality and large-scale human preference annotation data it was train on (see training dataset list on this hugging face page) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Citation & Credits |
|
If you are using PairRM in your research, please cite LLM-blender. |
|
```bibtex |
|
@inproceedings{llm-blender-2023, |
|
title = "LLM-Blender: Ensembling Large Language Models with Pairwise Comparison and Generative Fusion", |
|
author = "Jiang, Dongfu and Ren, Xiang and Lin, Bill Yuchen", |
|
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 61th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2023)", |
|
year = "2023" |
|
} |
|
|
|
``` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
