179 questions
No questions match those filters.
Walk through the RLHF pipeline end to end, and name the...
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansRLHF is three stages built on top of a supervised-fine-tuned base model.
First, collect pairwise human preference data: show labelers two model completions for the same prompt and have them pick the better one, which is far cheaper and more reliable to collect than absolute quality scores, since humans are much better at relative judgments. Second, train a reward model on those pairs — typically the same base architecture with a scalar output head, trained with a Bradley-Terry-style loss so the higher-ranked completion gets a higher score. Third, use that reward model as the optimization signal for the policy (the LLM being aligned), usually via PPO: sample a completion, score it with the reward model, and update the policy to increase the probability of higher-reward completions, with a KL penalty against the original SFT model to keep the policy from drifting arbitrarily far in search of reward.
The pitfalls are specific, not vague. Reward hacking happens when the policy finds completions the reward model scores highly for reasons that have nothing to do with true quality — padding responses to exploit a length bias the reward model picked up from training data, or adopting a confident, formulaic tone the reward model rewards independent of correctness. Mode collapse is a separate failure: because PPO optimizes toward whatever the reward model currently prefers, the policy’s output diversity can collapse toward a narrow set of “safe,” reward-model-approved patterns, which is part of why RLHF’d models sometimes read as stylistically homogeneous compared to their SFT-only base.
Reward model overoptimization is the deeper version of both: past some amount of PPO training, true response quality (as judged by humans) actually starts to fall even as the proxy reward keeps climbing, because the policy is increasingly optimizing the reward model’s blind spots rather than the underlying preference the reward model was trained to approximate. That’s exactly why production RLHF pipelines checkpoint and re-evaluate against fresh human judgment rather than trusting the reward curve in isolation, and why lighter-weight, more stable alternatives like DPO (which skips the separate reward model and PPO loop entirely) have become popular replacements for the RL step specifically because they remove reward hacking’s attack surface, not because the preference data itself is any different.