Real-Time Aligned Reward Model beyond Semantics
Abstract
RLHF suffers from reward overoptimization due to misalignment between reward models and policy models, which R2M addresses by incorporating real-time policy feedback to dynamically adapt reward modeling during training.
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is a pivotal technique for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences, yet it is susceptible to reward overoptimization, in which policy models overfit to the reward model, exploit spurious reward patterns instead of faithfully capturing human intent. Prior mitigations primarily relies on surface semantic information and fails to efficiently address the misalignment between the reward model (RM) and the policy model caused by continuous policy distribution shifts. This inevitably leads to an increasing reward discrepancy, exacerbating reward overoptimization. To address these limitations, we introduce R2M (Real-Time Aligned Reward Model), a novel lightweight RLHF framework. R2M goes beyond vanilla reward models that solely depend on the semantic representations of a pretrained LLM. Instead, it leverages the evolving hidden states of the policy (namely policy feedback) to align with the real-time distribution shift of the policy during the RL process. This work points to a promising new direction for improving the performance of reward models through real-time utilization of feedback from policy models.
Community
RLHF is central to aligning LLMs with human preferences, but it often suffers from reward overoptimization: the policy learns to game the reward model instead of truly following human intent. A key reason? Distribution shift—the policy keeps changing, while the reward model stays static.
R2M (Real-Time Aligned Reward Model) tackles this head-on.
Instead of relying only on fixed semantic features, R2M feeds on the policy’s evolving hidden states, aligning the reward model in real time with the policy’s trajectory during RL.
🔑 Takeaway:
Reward models shouldn’t be passive judges. They should co-evolve with the policy.
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper