Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is a technique for training AI systems to align with human goals. RLHF has emerged as the central method used to finetune state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs). Despite this popularity, there has been relatively little public work systematizing its flaws. In this paper, we (1) survey open problems and fundamental limitations of RLHF and related methods; (2) overview techniques to understand, improve, and complement RLHF in practice; and (3) propose auditing and disclosure standards to improve societal oversight of RLHF systems. Our work emphasizes the limitations of RLHF and highlights the importance of a multi-faceted approach to the development of safer AI systems.

Who Needs to Know? Minimal Knowledge for Optimal Coordination

To optimally coordinate with others in cooperative games, it is often crucial to have information about one's collaborators: successful driving requires understanding which side of the road to drive on. However, not every feature of collaborators is strategically relevant: the fine-grained acceleration of drivers may be ignored while maintaining optimal coordination. We show that there is a well-defined dichotomy between strategically relevant and irrelevant information. Moreover, we show that, in dynamic games, this dichotomy has a compact representation that can be efficiently computed via a Bellman backup operator. We apply this algorithm to analyze the strategically relevant information for tasks in both a standard and a partially observable version of the Overcooked environment. Theoretical and empirical results show that our algorithms are significantly more efficient than baselines. Videos are available at https://minknowledge.github.io.

Time-Efficient Reward Learning via Visually Assisted Cluster Ranking

One of the most successful paradigms for reward learning uses human feedback in the form of comparisons. Although these methods hold promise, human comparison labeling is expensive and time consuming, constituting a major bottleneck to their broader applicability. Our insight is that we can greatly improve how effectively human time is used in these approaches by batching comparisons together, rather than having the human label each comparison individually. To do so, we leverage data dimensionality-reduction and visualization techniques to provide the human with a interactive GUI displaying the state space, in which the user can label subportions of the state space. Across some simple Mujoco tasks, we show that this high-level approach holds promise and is able to greatly increase the performance of the resulting agents, provided the same amount of human labeling time.

UniMASK: Unified Inference in Sequential Decision Problems

Randomly masking and predicting word tokens has been a successful approach in pre-training language models for a variety of downstream tasks. In this work, we observe that the same idea also applies naturally to sequential decision-making, where many well-studied tasks like behavior cloning, offline reinforcement learning, inverse dynamics, and waypoint conditioning correspond to different sequence maskings over a sequence of states, actions, and returns. We introduce the UniMASK framework, which provides a unified way to specify models which can be trained on many different sequential decision-making tasks. We show that a single UniMASK model is often capable of carrying out many tasks with performance similar to or better than single-task models. Additionally, after fine-tuning, our UniMASK models consistently outperform comparable single-task models. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/micahcarroll/uniMASK.

Optimal Behavior Prior: Data-Efficient Human Models for Improved Human-AI Collaboration

AI agents designed to collaborate with people benefit from models that enable them to anticipate human behavior. However, realistic models tend to require vast amounts of human data, which is often hard to collect. A good prior or initialization could make for more data-efficient training, but what makes for a good prior on human behavior? Our work leverages a very simple assumption: people generally act closer to optimal than to random chance. We show that using optimal behavior as a prior for human models makes these models vastly more data-efficient and able to generalize to new environments. Our intuition is that such a prior enables the training to focus one's precious real-world data on capturing the subtle nuances of human suboptimality, instead of on the basics of how to do the task in the first place. We also show that using these improved human models often leads to better human-AI collaboration performance compared to using models based on real human data alone.

Towards Flexible Inference in Sequential Decision Problems via Bidirectional Transformers

Randomly masking and predicting word tokens has been a successful approach in pre-training language models for a variety of downstream tasks. In this work, we observe that the same idea also applies naturally to sequential decision making, where many well-studied tasks like behavior cloning, offline RL, inverse dynamics, and waypoint conditioning correspond to different sequence maskings over a sequence of states, actions, and returns. We introduce the FlexiBiT framework, which provides a unified way to specify models which can be trained on many different sequential decision making tasks. We show that a single FlexiBiT model is simultaneously capable of carrying out many tasks with performance similar to or better than specialized models. Additionally, we show that performance can be further improved by fine-tuning our general model on specific tasks of interest.

Estimating and Penalizing Induced Preference Shifts in Recommender Systems

The content that a recommender system (RS) shows to users influences them. Therefore, when choosing which recommender to deploy, one is implicitly also choosing to induce specific internal states in users. Even more, systems trained via long-horizon optimization will have direct incentives to manipulate users, e.g. shift their preferences so they are easier to satisfy. In this work we focus on induced preference shifts in users. We argue that - before deployment - system designers should: estimate the shifts a recommender would induce; evaluate whether such shifts would be undesirable; and even actively optimize to avoid problematic shifts. These steps involve two challenging ingredients: estimation requires anticipating how hypothetical policies would influence user preferences if deployed - we do this by using historical user interaction data to train predictive user model which implicitly contains their preference dynamics; evaluation and optimization additionally require metrics to assess whether such influences are manipulative or otherwise unwanted - we use the notion of "safe shifts", that define a trust region within which behavior is safe. In simulated experiments, we show that our learned preference dynamics model is effective in estimating user preferences and how they would respond to new recommenders. Additionally, we show that recommenders that optimize for staying in the trust region can avoid manipulative behaviors while still generating engagement.

Evaluating the Robustness of Collaborative Agents

In order for agents trained by deep reinforcement learning to work alongside humans in realistic settings, we will need to ensure that the agents are \emph{robust}. Since the real world is very diverse, and human behavior often changes in response to agent deployment, the agent will likely encounter novel situations that have never been seen during training. This results in an evaluation challenge: if we cannot rely on the average training or validation reward as a metric, then how can we effectively evaluate robustness? We take inspiration from the practice of \emph{unit testing} in software engineering. Specifically, we suggest that when designing AI agents that collaborate with humans, designers should search for potential edge cases in \emph{possible partner behavior} and \emph{possible states encountered}, and write tests which check that the behavior of the agent in these edge cases is reasonable. We apply this methodology to build a suite of unit tests for the Overcooked-AI environment, and use this test suite to evaluate three proposals for improving robustness. We find that the test suite provides significant insight into the effects of these proposals that were generally not revealed by looking solely at the average validation reward.

On the Utility of Learning about Humans for Human-AI Coordination

While we would like agents that can coordinate with humans, current algorithms such as self-play and population-based training create agents that can coordinate with themselves. Agents that assume their partner to be optimal or similar to them can converge to coordination protocols that fail to understand and be understood by humans. To demonstrate this, we introduce a simple environment that requires challenging coordination, based on the popular game Overcooked, and learn a simple model that mimics human play. We evaluate the performance of agents trained via self-play and population-based training. These agents perform very well when paired with themselves, but when paired with our human model, they are significantly worse than agents designed to play with the human model. An experiment with a planning algorithm yields the same conclusion, though only when the human-aware planner is given the exact human model that it is playing with. A user study with real humans shows this pattern as well, though less strongly. Qualitatively, we find that the gains come from having the agent adapt to the human's gameplay. Given this result, we suggest several approaches for designing agents that learn about humans in order to better coordinate with them. Code is available at https://github.com/HumanCompatibleAI/overcooked_ai.