arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2602.02572cs.LGcs.AI

奖励塑形用于(推理时)对齐:一个Stackelberg博弈视角

Reward Shaping for (Inference-Time) Alignment: A Stackelberg Game Perspective

University of Southern California(南加州大学)

Haichuan Wang, Tao Lin, Lingkai Kong, Ce Li, Hezi Jiang, Milind Tambe

AI总结:

针对KL正则化导致LLM继承基策略偏见的问题,提出将奖励模型优化形式化为Stackelberg博弈,并通过简单奖励塑形方案近似最优奖励模型,在推理时对齐中持续提升平均奖励并达到超过66%的胜率。

摘要:

现有的对齐方法直接使用从用户偏好数据中学习到的奖励模型来优化LLM策略,并相对于基策略进行KL正则化。这种做法对于最大化用户效用是次优的,因为KL正则化可能导致LLM继承基策略中与用户偏好冲突的偏见。虽然放大偏好输出的奖励可以减轻这种偏见,但也增加了奖励黑客的风险。这种权衡激励了在KL正则化下最优设计奖励模型的问题。我们将这个奖励模型优化问题形式化为一个Stackelberg博弈,并表明一个简单的奖励塑形方案可以有效近似最优奖励模型。我们在推理时对齐设置中经验性地评估了我们的方法,并证明它可以无缝集成到现有的对齐方法中,且开销最小。我们的方法持续提高了平均奖励,并在所有评估设置中平均达到了超过66%的胜率(相对于所有基线)。

英文摘要:

Existing alignment methods directly use the reward model learned from user preference data to optimize an LLM policy, subject to KL regularization with respect to the base policy. This practice is suboptimal for maximizing user's utility because the KL regularization may cause the LLM to inherit the bias in the base policy that conflicts with user preferences. While amplifying rewards for preferred outputs can mitigate this bias, it also increases the risk of reward hacking. This tradeoff motivates the problem of optimally designing reward models under KL regularization. We formalize this reward model optimization problem as a Stackelberg game, and show that a simple reward shaping scheme can effectively approximate the optimal reward model. We empirically evaluate our method in inference-time alignment settings and demonstrate that it integrates seamlessly into existing alignment methods with minimal overhead. Our method consistently improves average reward and achieves win-tie rates exceeding 66% against all baselines, averaged across evaluation settings.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑