Skip to yearly menu bar Skip to main content

In-Person Oral presentation / top 25% paper

Is Reinforcement Learning (Not) for Natural Language Processing: Benchmarks, Baselines, and Building Blocks for Natural Language Policy Optimization

Rajkumar Ramamurthy · Prithviraj Ammanabrolu · Kianté Brantley · Jack Hessel · Rafet Sifa · Christian Bauckhage · Hannaneh Hajishirzi · Yejin Choi


Abstract: We tackle the problem of aligning pre-trained large language models (LMs) with human preferences. If we view text generation as a sequential decision-making problem, reinforcement learning (RL) appears to be a natural conceptual framework. However, using RL for LM-based generation faces empirical challenges, including training instability due to the combinatorial action space, as well as a lack of open-source libraries and benchmarks customized for LM alignment. Thus, a question rises in the research community: is RL a practical paradigm for NLP?To help answer this, we first introduce an open-source modular library, $RL4LMs$ (Reinforcement Learning for Language Models), for optimizing language generators with RL. The library consists of on-policy RL algorithms that can be used to train any encoder or encoder-decoder LM in the HuggingFace library (Wolf et al. 2020) with an arbitrary reward function. Next, we present the $GRUE$ (General Reinforced-language Understanding Evaluation) benchmark, a set of 6 language generation tasks which are supervised not by target strings, but by reward functions which capture automated measures of human preference.GRUE is the first leaderboard-style evaluation of RL algorithms for NLP tasks. Finally, we introduce an easy-to-use, performant RL algorithm, $NLPO$ (Natural Language Policy Optimization)} that learns to effectively reduce the combinatorial action space in language generation. We show 1) that RL techniques are generally better than supervised methods at aligning LMs to human preferences; and 2) that NLPO exhibits greater stability and performance than previous policy gradient methods (e.g., PPO (Schulman et al. 2017)), based on both automatic and human evaluations.

Chat is not available.