[Question]: benchmark for the llama_index, but the latency is so weird.

[lambda7xx]

Question Validation

• [X] I have searched both the documentation and discord for an answer.

Question

hello, i want to profile the llama index system . my code snippet is below. My gpu is one A10 with 24GB memory. i record the time for a simple query. it's about 7s. I think the latency is so large. is it normal?. the code is from https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1-f5v48TnX5rGdaMdWTr8XsjTGrWZ6Q7Y?usp=sharing#scrollTo=Lb9CsvvQNR9K

[dosubot[bot]]

Hey @lambda7xx, great to see you back! I remember diving into some intriguing topics with you before. How's everything going?

Based on the code snippet and the information you've provided, there are several factors that could contribute to the latency you're experiencing. Here's a breakdown:

1. Asynchronous Execution: The use of asyncio for handling sub-questions (_aquery_subq) asynchronously can introduce latency depending on how these tasks are scheduled and executed, the response time of the external services (if any are called), and the efficiency of the event loop.

2. External Service Calls: If the sub-question generation (OpenAIQuestionGenerator or LLMQuestionGenerator) or the response synthesizer involves calls to external services, network latency and the response time of these services can significantly impact overall latency.

3. Verbose Logging: The code checks for a verbose flag and, if set to True, prints out intermediate questions and answers. While printing to the console is generally fast, excessive logging can slow down execution, especially if the output device is slow or if the logging is extensive.

4. Callback Management: The use of a callback manager to handle events related to queries and sub-questions introduces additional overhead. The impact depends on the implementation of the callback manager and the complexity of the events being handled.

5. Complexity of Sub-Question Processing: The process of breaking down queries into sub-questions, executing them individually, and then synthesizing a response can be inherently time-consuming, especially if the sub-questions are complex or if there are many of them.

6. Implementation of Query Engines: The latency could also be influenced by the specific implementations of the query engines used to answer the sub-questions (self._query_engines[sub_q.tool_name].aquery(question)). The efficiency of these engines and their underlying algorithms can vary.

Given these factors, the observed latency of approximately 7 seconds could be considered normal depending on the complexity of the query, the efficiency of the involved components, and the response times of any external services. Optimizing the system for performance would involve reviewing each of these areas to identify and mitigate bottlenecks.

As for the average latency for a simple query on the LlamaIndex system using a similar GPU setup, I wasn't able to find an answer within the repository. The latency can vary greatly depending on the factors mentioned above.

The specific implementations of the query engines used in the LlamaIndex system are quite diverse, ranging from handling SQL and graph-based queries to dealing with retries, routing, and even multimodal queries. Each engine is specialized for different types of data retrieval, processing, or query transformation tasks within the LlamaIndex system. You can find more details about these implementations in the llama-index-core/llama_index/core/query_engine/init.py file.

I hope this helps! If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask.

Sources

• llama-index-legacy/llama_index/legacy/query_engine/sub_question_query_engine.py
• llama-index-core/llama_index/core/query_engine/init.py

#### About Dosu

This response is meant to be useful and save you time. It is **not meant to be a precise solution**, but rather a starting point for your own research. Help me be more useful! Please leave a 👍 if this is helpful and 👎 if it is irrelevant. If you want to continue the conversation, start your reply with @dosu-bot.

[logan-markewich]

For running a local LLM, thats about right

You can test this by running llm.complete("input") with a very large input. By default, llama-index is minimizing LLM calls by making the input larger

I would look into using something more optimized like vllm or TGI

[logan-markewich]

You can observe the llm inputs and outputs (and how many llm calls its making) with these two lines

import llama_index.core

llama_index.core.set_global_handler("simple")

[lambda7xx]

You can observe the llm inputs and outputs (and how many llm calls its making) with these two lines

import llama_index.core

llama_index.core.set_global_handler("simple")

I am curious how to count the llm calls? I use the your code

#query_rewrite_llama2_paper.ipynb
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
"""Copy of Mistral-7b-instruct-feature-test.ipynb

Automatically generated by Colaboratory.

Original file is located at
    https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1kplJNYL-KdrrHcxlHLwZdBltRQRZ9EMP

Note: Responses from local models can be quite slow, especially with 8-bit quantization.

With 4bit quantization, `mistralai/Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.1` uses about 12GB of VRAM and 8.5GB of RAM. I used a T4-High RAM instance for this notebook.
"""

# Commented out IPython magic to ensure Python compatibility.
# %pip install llama-index
# %pip install transformers accelerate bitsandbytes
# %pip install llama-index-readers-web
# %pip install llama-index-llms-huggingface
# %pip install llama-index-embeddings-huggingface
# %pip install llama-index-program-openai
# %pip install llama-index-agent-openai

"""## Setup

### Data
"""
import torch.cuda.nvtx as nvtx
from llama_index.core import  SimpleDirectoryReader

"""### LLM

This should run on a T4 instance on the free tier
"""

import torch
# from transformers import BitsAndBytesConfig

from llama_index.llms.huggingface import HuggingFaceLLM
from llama_index.core.prompts import PromptTemplate

from llama_index.core import Settings

from llama_index.core import VectorStoreIndex
from llama_index.core import  SimpleDirectoryReader
from llama_index.core.response.notebook_utils import display_response

import llama_index.core 
import time 

llama_index.core.set_global_handler("simple")

llm = HuggingFaceLLM(
    model_name="mistralai/Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.1",
    tokenizer_name="mistralai/Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.1",
    query_wrapper_prompt=PromptTemplate("<s>[INST] {query_str} [/INST] </s>\n"),
    context_window=3900,
    max_new_tokens=256,
    model_kwargs={"torch_dtype": torch.bfloat16},
    # tokenizer_kwargs={},
    generate_kwargs={"temperature": 0.2, "top_k": 5, "top_p": 0.95},
    device_map="auto",
)

Settings.llm = llm
Settings.embed_model = "local:BAAI/bge-small-en-v1.5"

documents = SimpleDirectoryReader("./data/llama2_paper/").load_data() #data/llmama2_paper.json

vector_index = VectorStoreIndex.from_documents(documents)
index = VectorStoreIndex.from_documents(documents=documents)
query_engine = index.as_query_engine()

query="In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, explain the significance of the binary ranking label format and how it affects the training of the reward model. Refer to the loss function provided and discuss the role of the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process."
tmp_query = query 

query_gen_str = """\
You are a helpful assistant that generates multiple search queries based on a \
single input query. Generate {num_queries} search queries, one on each line, \
related to the following input query:
Query: {query}
Queries:
"""
query_gen_prompt = PromptTemplate(query_gen_str)

def generate_queries(query: str, llm, num_queries: int = 4):
    start = time.time()
    response = llm.predict(
        query_gen_prompt, num_queries=num_queries, query=query
    )
    end = time.time()
    print(f"duration:{end - start}")
    # assume LLM proper put each query on a newline
    queries = response.split("\n")
    queries_str = "\n".join(queries)
    print(f"Generated queries:\n{queries_str}")
    return queries

queries = generate_queries(query,Settings.llm)

query_engine = vector_index.as_query_engine(response_mode="compact") 
#warm up
for query1 in queries:
    response = query_engine .query(query1)

print("*******start query rewrite")

for query1 in queries:
    start = time.time()
    response = query_engine.query(query1)
    end = time.time()
    print(f"duration:{end - start}, query1:{query1}")
    display_response(response)

print("*******end query rewrite")

start = time.time()
response = query_engine.query(tmp_query)
end = time.time()
print(f"duration:{end - start}, type(reponse):{type(response)}")

my log is

Loading checkpoint shards:   0%|          | 0/2 [00:00<?, ?it/s]
Loading checkpoint shards:  50%|█████     | 1/2 [00:01<00:01,  1.29s/it]
Loading checkpoint shards: 100%|██████████| 2/2 [00:01<00:00,  1.09it/s]
Loading checkpoint shards: 100%|██████████| 2/2 [00:01<00:00,  1.03it/s]
/opt/conda/envs/pytorch/lib/python3.10/site-packages/transformers/generation/configuration_utils.py:492: UserWarning: `do_sample` is set to `False`. However, `temperature` is set to `0.2` -- this flag is only used in sample-based generation modes. You should set `do_sample=True` or unset `temperature`.
  warnings.warn(
/opt/conda/envs/pytorch/lib/python3.10/site-packages/transformers/generation/configuration_utils.py:497: UserWarning: `do_sample` is set to `False`. However, `top_p` is set to `0.95` -- this flag is only used in sample-based generation modes. You should set `do_sample=True` or unset `top_p`.
  warnings.warn(
/opt/conda/envs/pytorch/lib/python3.10/site-packages/transformers/generation/configuration_utils.py:509: UserWarning: `do_sample` is set to `False`. However, `top_k` is set to `5` -- this flag is only used in sample-based generation modes. You should set `do_sample=True` or unset `top_k`.
  warnings.warn(
Setting `pad_token_id` to `eos_token_id`:2 for open-end generation.
Setting `pad_token_id` to `eos_token_id`:2 for open-end generation.
** Prompt: **
<s>[INST] You are a helpful assistant that generates multiple search queries based on a single input query. Generate 4 search queries, one on each line, related to the following input query:
Query: In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, explain the significance of the binary ranking label format and how it affects the training of the reward model. Refer to the loss function provided and discuss the role of the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process.
Queries:
 [/INST] </s>

**************************************************
** Completion: **
1. What is the binary ranking label format used in Llama 2-Chat for reward modeling?
2. How does the binary ranking label format affect the training of the reward model in Llama 2-Chat?
3. What is the role of the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process in Llama 2-Chat?
4. How does the loss function provided in Llama 2-Chat account for the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process?
**************************************************

duration:4.123687505722046
Generated queries:
1. What is the binary ranking label format used in Llama 2-Chat for reward modeling?
2. How does the binary ranking label format affect the training of the reward model in Llama 2-Chat?
3. What is the role of the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process in Llama 2-Chat?
4. How does the loss function provided in Llama 2-Chat account for the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process?
** Prompt: **
<s>[INST] Context information is below.
---------------------
file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

WenotethatinthecontextofRLHFin\nthis study, the role of reward signals is to learn human preference for Llama 2-Chat outputs rather than\nany model outputs. However, in our experiments, we do not observe negative transfer from the open-source\npreferencedatasets."
            ],
            "reference_answer": "In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, the binary ranking label format plays a crucial role in training the reward model to discern between more and less preferred responses. This format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as \"chosen\" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as \"rejected\" (not preferred).\n\nThe significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and safe interactions.\n\nThe loss function provided, \\( L_{ranking} = -\\log(\\sigma(r_{\\theta}(x, y_c) - r_{\\theta}(x, y_r))) \\), uses a binary ranking loss, where \\( r_{\\theta}(x, y) \\) represents the scalar score output for prompt \\( x \\) and completion \\( y \\) with model weights \\( \\theta \\). The \\( y_c \\) is the chosen (preferred) response, and \\( y_r \\) is the rejected response. The function \\( \\sigma \\) represents the sigmoid function, which maps the difference in scores to a probability between 0 and 1.\n\nIn the learning process, the model is trained to maximize the score of the chosen response \\( y_c \\) while minimizing the score of the rejected response \\( y_r \\). The loss function penalizes the model when the score of the chosen response is not sufficiently higher than the score of the rejected response. By doing so, the model learns to differentiate between high-quality and lower-quality responses based on human preferences.\n\nThe chosen and rejected responses play pivotal roles in the model's learning process by providing explicit examples of what is considered a good or bad response in the context of a given prompt. The model uses these examples to adjust its parameters and improve its ability to predict rewards (scores) that reflect human preferences, ultimately leading to more helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Describe the approach taken to improve the accuracy of the Helpfulness reward model when dealing with samples where two responses are more separable. How does the introduction of a margin component in the loss function contribute to this improvement, and where can more detailed analysis on this modification be found?",
            "query_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            },
            "reference_contexts": [
                "DatasetNum. of\nComparisonsAvg. # Turns\nper DialogueAvg. # Tokens\nper ExampleAvg. # Tokens\nin PromptAvg. # Tokens\nin Response\nAnthropic Helpful 122,387 3.0 251.5 17.7 88.4\nAnthropic Harmless 43,966 3.0 152.5 15.7 46.4\nOpenAI Summarize 176,625 1.0 371.1 336.0 35.1\nOpenAI WebGPT 13,333 1.0 237.2 48.3 188.9\nStackExchange 1,038,480 1.0 440.2 200.1 240.2\nStanford SHP 74,882 1.0 338.3 199.5 138.8\nSynthetic GPT-J 33,139 1.0 123.3 13.0 110.3\nMeta (Safety & Helpfulness) 1,418,091 3.9 798.5 31.4 234.1\nTotal 2,919,326 1.6 595.7 108.2 216.9\nTable 6: Statistics of human preference data for reward modeling. We list both the open-source and\ninternally collected human preference data used for reward modeling.

file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Explain the binary comparison protocol used in the human preference data collection for Llama 2-Chat's reward modeling. What are the main reasons for choosing this method over other schemes?",
            "query_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            },
            "reference_contexts": [
                "sampled human preferences, whereby human annotators select which of two model outputs they prefer.\nThis human feedback is subsequently used to train a reward model, which learns patterns in the preferences\nof the human annotators and can then automate preference decisions.\n3.2.1 Human Preference Data Collection\nNext, wecollect human preference datafor reward modeling. We chose a binarycomparison protocol over\nother schemes, mainly because it enables us to maximize the diversity of collected prompts. Still, other\nstrategies are worth considering, which we leave for future work.\nOur annotation procedure proceeds as follows. We ask annotators to first write a prompt, then choose\nbetweentwosampledmodelresponses,basedonprovidedcriteria. Inordertomaximizethediversity,the\ntworesponsestoagivenpromptaresampledfromtwodifferentmodelvariants,andvaryingthetemperature\nhyper-parameter. Inadditiontogivingparticipantsaforcedchoice,wealsoaskannotatorstolabelthedegree\nto which they prefer their chosen response over the alternative: either their choice is significantly better ,better,\nslightly better , ornegligibly better/ unsure .\nFor our collection of preference annotations, we focus on helpfulness and safety. Helpfulness refers to how\nwell Llama 2-Chat responses fulfill users\u2019 requests and provide requested information; safety refers to\nwhether Llama 2-Chat \u2019s responses are unsafe, e.g., \u201cgiving detailed instructions on making a bomb\u201d could\nbe considered helpful but is unsafe according to our safety guidelines. Separating the two allows us to\napplyspecificguidelinestoeachandbetterguideannotators;forexample,oursafetyannotationsprovide\ninstructions to focus on adversarial prompts, among other guidance.\nApart from differences in annotation guidelines, we additionally collect a safety label during the safety stage.\nThis additional information bins model responses into one of three categories: 1) the preferred response\nis safe and the other response is not, 2) both responses are safe, and 3) both responses are unsafe, with\n18%, 47%, and 35% of the safety dataset falling into each bin, respectively. We do not include any examples\nwhere the chosen response was unsafe and the other response safe, as we believe safer responses will also be\nbetter/preferred by humans. Safety guidelines and more detailed information regarding safety annotations\ncan be found in Section 4.2.1.\nHuman annotations were collected in batches on a weekly basis. As we collected more preference data, our\nreward models improved, and we were able to train progressively better versions for Llama 2-Chat (see\ntheresultsinSection5,Figure20). Llama 2-Chat improvementalsoshiftedthemodel\u2019sdatadistribution.\nSince reward model accuracy can quickly degrade if not exposed to this new sample distribution, i.e., from\nhyper-specialization(Scialometal.,2020b),itisimportantbeforeanew Llama 2-Chat tuningiterationto\ngather new preference data using the latest Llama 2-Chat iterations. This step helps keep the reward model\non-distribution and maintain an accurate reward for the latest model.\nInTable6,wereportthestatisticsofrewardmodelingdatathatwecollectedovertime,andpresentthem\nagainst multiple open-source preference datasets including Anthropic Helpful and Harmless (Bai et al.,\n2022a), OpenAISummarize(Stiennon etal., 2020),OpenAI WebGPT(Nakanoet al.,2021), StackExchange\n(Lambert et al., 2023), Stanford Human Preferences (Ethayarajh et al., 2022), and Synthetic GPT-J (Havrilla).\nWe collected a large dataset ofover 1million binary comparisons based on humansapplyingour specified\nguidelines, which we refer to as Metareward modeling data. Note that the number of tokens in prompts and\nanswers differs depending on the text domain.
---------------------
Given the context information and not prior knowledge, answer the query.
Query: 1. What is the binary ranking label format used in Llama 2-Chat for reward modeling?
Answer:  [/INST] </s>
Setting `pad_token_id` to `eos_token_id`:2 for open-end generation.

**************************************************
** Completion: **

The binary ranking label format used in Llama 2-Chat for reward modeling involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as "chosen" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as "rejected" (not preferred). The significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.
**************************************************

** Prompt: **
<s>[INST] Context information is below.
---------------------
file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

WenotethatinthecontextofRLHFin\nthis study, the role of reward signals is to learn human preference for Llama 2-Chat outputs rather than\nany model outputs. However, in our experiments, we do not observe negative transfer from the open-source\npreferencedatasets."
            ],
            "reference_answer": "In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, the binary ranking label format plays a crucial role in training the reward model to discern between more and less preferred responses. This format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as \"chosen\" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as \"rejected\" (not preferred).\n\nThe significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and safe interactions.\n\nThe loss function provided, \\( L_{ranking} = -\\log(\\sigma(r_{\\theta}(x, y_c) - r_{\\theta}(x, y_r))) \\), uses a binary ranking loss, where \\( r_{\\theta}(x, y) \\) represents the scalar score output for prompt \\( x \\) and completion \\( y \\) with model weights \\( \\theta \\). The \\( y_c \\) is the chosen (preferred) response, and \\( y_r \\) is the rejected response. The function \\( \\sigma \\) represents the sigmoid function, which maps the difference in scores to a probability between 0 and 1.\n\nIn the learning process, the model is trained to maximize the score of the chosen response \\( y_c \\) while minimizing the score of the rejected response \\( y_r \\). The loss function penalizes the model when the score of the chosen response is not sufficiently higher than the score of the rejected response. By doing so, the model learns to differentiate between high-quality and lower-quality responses based on human preferences.\n\nThe chosen and rejected responses play pivotal roles in the model's learning process by providing explicit examples of what is considered a good or bad response in the context of a given prompt. The model uses these examples to adjust its parameters and improve its ability to predict rewards (scores) that reflect human preferences, ultimately leading to more helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Describe the approach taken to improve the accuracy of the Helpfulness reward model when dealing with samples where two responses are more separable. How does the introduction of a margin component in the loss function contribute to this improvement, and where can more detailed analysis on this modification be found?",
            "query_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            },
            "reference_contexts": [
                "DatasetNum. of\nComparisonsAvg. # Turns\nper DialogueAvg. # Tokens\nper ExampleAvg. # Tokens\nin PromptAvg. # Tokens\nin Response\nAnthropic Helpful 122,387 3.0 251.5 17.7 88.4\nAnthropic Harmless 43,966 3.0 152.5 15.7 46.4\nOpenAI Summarize 176,625 1.0 371.1 336.0 35.1\nOpenAI WebGPT 13,333 1.0 237.2 48.3 188.9\nStackExchange 1,038,480 1.0 440.2 200.1 240.2\nStanford SHP 74,882 1.0 338.3 199.5 138.8\nSynthetic GPT-J 33,139 1.0 123.3 13.0 110.3\nMeta (Safety & Helpfulness) 1,418,091 3.9 798.5 31.4 234.1\nTotal 2,919,326 1.6 595.7 108.2 216.9\nTable 6: Statistics of human preference data for reward modeling. We list both the open-source and\ninternally collected human preference data used for reward modeling.

file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

Figure6reportsthesetrends,showingtheexpectedresultthatlarger\nmodels obtain higher performance for a similar volume of data. More importantly, the scaling performance\nhasnotyetplateauedgiventheexistingvolumeofdataannotationusedfortraining,asignalthatthereis\nroom for more improvement with more annotations. We note that reward model accuracy is one of the most\nimportant proxies for the final performance of Llama 2-Chat . While best practices for comprehensively\nevaluating a generative model is an open research question, the ranking task of the reward has no ambiguity.\nTherefore, everything else being equal, an improvement of the reward model can be directly translated into\nan improvement for Llama 2-Chat .\n3.2.3 Iterative Fine-Tuning\nAs we received more batches of human preference data annotation, we were able to train better reward\nmodelsandcollectmoreprompts. WethereforetrainedsuccessiveversionsforRLHFmodels,referredto\nhere as RLHF-V1, ..., RLHF-V5.\nWe explored RLHF fine-tuning with two main algorithms:\n\u2022Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) (Schulman et al., 2017), the standard in RLHF literature.\n\u2022RejectionSamplingfine-tuning . Wesample Koutputsfromthemodelandselectthebestcandidate\nwith our reward, consistent with Bai et al. (2022b). The same re-ranking strategy for LLMs was also\nproposedinDengetal.(2019),wheretherewardisseenasanenergyfunction. Here,wegoonestep\nfurther,anduse theselectedoutputsfora gradientupdate. For eachprompt,thesample obtaining\n13"
            ],
            "reference_answer": "The two main algorithms used for iterative fine-tuning of RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback) models as mentioned in the document are:\n\n1. Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO): This is a standard algorithm in RLHF literature, which is a type of policy gradient method for reinforcement learning. PPO aims to take the biggest possible step to improve policy performance without causing the policy to become too different from its previous version, hence the term \"proximal.\" It does this by optimizing a surrogate objective function and using a clipped probability ratio, which prevents the updates from being too large and ensures stable and reliable improvement.\n\n2. Rejection Sampling fine-tuning: This method involves sampling K outputs from the model and selecting the best candidate according to the reward model, which is consistent with the approach described by Bai et al. (2022b). The reward is seen as an energy function, and the selected outputs are then used for a gradient update. For each prompt, the sample that obtains the highest reward is chosen for the update. This approach is a re-ranking strategy where multiple outputs are generated, and the most suitable one is picked based on the reward model's evaluation.\n\nKey differences between PPO and Rejection Sampling fine-tuning:\n\n- **Algorithm Type**: PPO is a policy gradient method that directly adjusts the policy by computing gradients, whereas Rejection Sampling is a re-ranking strategy that generates multiple outputs and selects the best one based on a reward model.\n  \n- **Update Mechanism**: PPO uses a clipped probability ratio to ensure the updates are significant but not too large, focusing on maintaining a balance between exploration and exploitation. Rejection Sampling fine-tuning, on the other hand, involves generating multiple outputs and using the reward model to pick the best one for the gradient update, which is more of a selection process from a set of generated possibilities.\n\n- **Objective**: PPO optimizes a surrogate objective function to improve policy performance, while Rejection Sampling fine-tuning uses the reward model as an energy function to evaluate and select the best output for updates.\n\n- **Complexity**: PPO is generally considered more complex due to its surrogate objective and clipping mechanism, while Rejection Sampling fine-tuning is conceptually simpler as it involves sampling and selecting the best output based on the reward.\n\n- **Stability**: PPO is designed to provide stable learning updates, whereas the stability of Rejection Sampling fine-tuning would depend on the variance of the outputs generated and the accuracy of the reward model in selecting the best candidate.",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Explain the concept of Rejection Sampling as used in the fine-tuning process of the Llama 2-Chat model.
---------------------
Given the context information and not prior knowledge, answer the query.
Query: 2. How does the binary ranking label format affect the training of the reward model in Llama 2-Chat?
Answer:  [/INST] </s>
Setting `pad_token_id` to `eos_token_id`:2 for open-end generation.

**************************************************
** Completion: **

The binary ranking label format plays a crucial role in training the reward model in Llama 2-Chat. The format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as "chosen" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as "rejected" (not preferred). This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat. The loss function provided, \\( L_{ranking} = -\\log(\\sigma(r_{\\theta}(x, y_c) - r_{\\theta}(x, y_r))) \\), uses a binary ranking loss, where \\( r_{\\theta}(x, y) \\) represents the scalar score output for prompt \\( x \\) and completion \\( y \\) with model weights \\( \\theta \\). The \\( y_c \\) is the chosen (preferred) response, and \\( y_r \\) is the rejected response. The function \\( \\sigma \\) represents the sigmoid function, which maps the difference in
**************************************************

** Prompt: **
<s>[INST] Context information is below.
---------------------
file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

WenotethatinthecontextofRLHFin\nthis study, the role of reward signals is to learn human preference for Llama 2-Chat outputs rather than\nany model outputs. However, in our experiments, we do not observe negative transfer from the open-source\npreferencedatasets."
            ],
            "reference_answer": "In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, the binary ranking label format plays a crucial role in training the reward model to discern between more and less preferred responses. This format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as \"chosen\" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as \"rejected\" (not preferred).\n\nThe significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and safe interactions.\n\nThe loss function provided, \\( L_{ranking} = -\\log(\\sigma(r_{\\theta}(x, y_c) - r_{\\theta}(x, y_r))) \\), uses a binary ranking loss, where \\( r_{\\theta}(x, y) \\) represents the scalar score output for prompt \\( x \\) and completion \\( y \\) with model weights \\( \\theta \\). The \\( y_c \\) is the chosen (preferred) response, and \\( y_r \\) is the rejected response. The function \\( \\sigma \\) represents the sigmoid function, which maps the difference in scores to a probability between 0 and 1.\n\nIn the learning process, the model is trained to maximize the score of the chosen response \\( y_c \\) while minimizing the score of the rejected response \\( y_r \\). The loss function penalizes the model when the score of the chosen response is not sufficiently higher than the score of the rejected response. By doing so, the model learns to differentiate between high-quality and lower-quality responses based on human preferences.\n\nThe chosen and rejected responses play pivotal roles in the model's learning process by providing explicit examples of what is considered a good or bad response in the context of a given prompt. The model uses these examples to adjust its parameters and improve its ability to predict rewards (scores) that reflect human preferences, ultimately leading to more helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Describe the approach taken to improve the accuracy of the Helpfulness reward model when dealing with samples where two responses are more separable. How does the introduction of a margin component in the loss function contribute to this improvement, and where can more detailed analysis on this modification be found?",
            "query_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            },
            "reference_contexts": [
                "DatasetNum. of\nComparisonsAvg. # Turns\nper DialogueAvg. # Tokens\nper ExampleAvg. # Tokens\nin PromptAvg. # Tokens\nin Response\nAnthropic Helpful 122,387 3.0 251.5 17.7 88.4\nAnthropic Harmless 43,966 3.0 152.5 15.7 46.4\nOpenAI Summarize 176,625 1.0 371.1 336.0 35.1\nOpenAI WebGPT 13,333 1.0 237.2 48.3 188.9\nStackExchange 1,038,480 1.0 440.2 200.1 240.2\nStanford SHP 74,882 1.0 338.3 199.5 138.8\nSynthetic GPT-J 33,139 1.0 123.3 13.0 110.3\nMeta (Safety & Helpfulness) 1,418,091 3.9 798.5 31.4 234.1\nTotal 2,919,326 1.6 595.7 108.2 216.9\nTable 6: Statistics of human preference data for reward modeling. We list both the open-source and\ninternally collected human preference data used for reward modeling.

file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

Summarization and online forum data generally have longer\nprompts, while dialogue-style prompts are usually shorter. Compared to existing open-source datasets, our\npreference data features more conversation turns, and are longer, on average.\n3.2.2 Reward Modeling\nThe reward model takes a model response and its corresponding prompt (including contexts from previous\nturns) as inputs and outputs a scalar score to indicate the quality (e.g., helpfulness and safety) of the model\ngeneration. Leveragingsuchresponsescoresasrewards,wecanoptimize Llama 2-Chat duringRLHFfor\nbetter human preference alignment and improved helpfulness and safety."
            ],
            "reference_answer": "In the context of Llama 2-Chat's reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) process, the reward model plays a crucial role in aligning the chatbot's responses with human preferences. The reward model is trained using data collected from human annotators who evaluate pairs of model-generated responses based on specific criteria such as helpfulness and safety. These human annotators are asked to choose between two responses to a given prompt and rate their preference, providing a rich dataset of binary comparisons.\n\nThe reward model takes as input a model response along with its corresponding prompt, which may include context from previous conversation turns. It then outputs a scalar score that indicates the perceived quality of the response in terms of the criteria set forth during the data collection, such as helpfulness and safety.\n\nThese scalar scores are used as rewards in the RLHF process. Essentially, Llama 2-Chat is fine-tuned through reinforcement learning, where the actions are the generated responses, and the rewards are the scalar scores provided by the reward model. By optimizing the chatbot's parameters to maximize these rewards, Llama 2-Chat is trained to produce responses that are more aligned with human preferences. This process iteratively improves the chatbot's performance, as it learns to generate responses that are more likely to be preferred by humans based on the patterns identified in the reward model.\n\nIn summary, the reward model in the RLHF process for Llama 2-Chat serves to automate the preference decisions of human annotators, providing a mechanism for the chatbot to learn from human feedback and adjust its responses to be more helpful and safe, thereby better aligning with human preferences.",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Explain the concept of Metareward modeling data as described in the document. How does the variability in token numbers across different text domains (like summarization, online forums, and dialogue-style prompts) impact the dataset?",
            "query_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            },
            "reference_contexts": [
                "We collected a large dataset ofover 1million binary comparisons based on humansapplyingour specified\nguidelines, which we refer to as Metareward modeling data. Note that the number of tokens in prompts and\nanswers differs depending on the text domain. Summarization and online forum data generally have longer\nprompts, while dialogue-style prompts are usually shorter. Compared to existing open-source datasets, our\npreference data features more conversation turns, and are longer, on average.\n3.2.2 Reward Modeling\nThe reward model takes a model response and its corresponding prompt (including contexts from previous\nturns) as inputs and outputs a scalar score to indicate the quality (e.g., helpfulness and safety) of the model\ngeneration. Leveragingsuchresponsescoresasrewards,wecanoptimize Llama 2-Chat duringRLHFfor\nbetter human preference alignment and improved helpfulness and safety.\nOthers have found that helpfulness and safety sometimes trade off (Bai et al., 2022a), which can make it\nchallengingforasinglerewardmodeltoperformwellonboth. Toaddressthis,wetraintwoseparatereward\nmodels, one optimized for helpfulness (referred to as Helpfulness RM ) and another for safety ( Safety RM ).\nWe initialize our reward models from pretrained chat model checkpoints, as it ensures that both models\nbenefitfromknowledgeacquiredinpretraining.
---------------------
Given the context information and not prior knowledge, answer the query.
Query: 3. What is the role of the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process in Llama 2-Chat?
Answer:  [/INST] </s>
Setting `pad_token_id` to `eos_token_id`:2 for open-end generation.

**************************************************
** Completion: **

The chosen and rejected responses play a crucial role in the model's learning process in Llama 2-Chat. In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling, the binary ranking label format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as "chosen" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as "rejected" (not preferred). The significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat. The chosen and rejected responses provide explicit examples of what is considered a good or bad response in the context of a given prompt, allowing the model to adjust its parameters and improve its ability to predict rewards (scores) that reflect human preferences, ultimately leading to more helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.
**************************************************

** Prompt: **
<s>[INST] Context information is below.
---------------------
file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

WenotethatinthecontextofRLHFin\nthis study, the role of reward signals is to learn human preference for Llama 2-Chat outputs rather than\nany model outputs. However, in our experiments, we do not observe negative transfer from the open-source\npreferencedatasets."
            ],
            "reference_answer": "In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, the binary ranking label format plays a crucial role in training the reward model to discern between more and less preferred responses. This format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as \"chosen\" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as \"rejected\" (not preferred).\n\nThe significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and safe interactions.\n\nThe loss function provided, \\( L_{ranking} = -\\log(\\sigma(r_{\\theta}(x, y_c) - r_{\\theta}(x, y_r))) \\), uses a binary ranking loss, where \\( r_{\\theta}(x, y) \\) represents the scalar score output for prompt \\( x \\) and completion \\( y \\) with model weights \\( \\theta \\). The \\( y_c \\) is the chosen (preferred) response, and \\( y_r \\) is the rejected response. The function \\( \\sigma \\) represents the sigmoid function, which maps the difference in scores to a probability between 0 and 1.\n\nIn the learning process, the model is trained to maximize the score of the chosen response \\( y_c \\) while minimizing the score of the rejected response \\( y_r \\). The loss function penalizes the model when the score of the chosen response is not sufficiently higher than the score of the rejected response. By doing so, the model learns to differentiate between high-quality and lower-quality responses based on human preferences.\n\nThe chosen and rejected responses play pivotal roles in the model's learning process by providing explicit examples of what is considered a good or bad response in the context of a given prompt. The model uses these examples to adjust its parameters and improve its ability to predict rewards (scores) that reflect human preferences, ultimately leading to more helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Describe the approach taken to improve the accuracy of the Helpfulness reward model when dealing with samples where two responses are more separable. How does the introduction of a margin component in the loss function contribute to this improvement, and where can more detailed analysis on this modification be found?",
            "query_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            },
            "reference_contexts": [
                "DatasetNum. of\nComparisonsAvg. # Turns\nper DialogueAvg. # Tokens\nper ExampleAvg. # Tokens\nin PromptAvg. # Tokens\nin Response\nAnthropic Helpful 122,387 3.0 251.5 17.7 88.4\nAnthropic Harmless 43,966 3.0 152.5 15.7 46.4\nOpenAI Summarize 176,625 1.0 371.1 336.0 35.1\nOpenAI WebGPT 13,333 1.0 237.2 48.3 188.9\nStackExchange 1,038,480 1.0 440.2 200.1 240.2\nStanford SHP 74,882 1.0 338.3 199.5 138.8\nSynthetic GPT-J 33,139 1.0 123.3 13.0 110.3\nMeta (Safety & Helpfulness) 1,418,091 3.9 798.5 31.4 234.1\nTotal 2,919,326 1.6 595.7 108.2 216.9\nTable 6: Statistics of human preference data for reward modeling. We list both the open-source and\ninternally collected human preference data used for reward modeling.

file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

We show the evolution after multiple iterations fine-tuning for the\nwin-rate%of Llama 2-Chat comparedtoChatGPT. Left: thejudgeisourrewardmodel,whichmayfavor\nour model, and right, the judge is GPT-4, which should be more neutral.\non diverse open-source Reward Modeling datasets. We have not yet observed any such divergence, and\nhypothesize that iterative model updates may be helping to prevent this.\nAs a last verification step to ensure no regression between our new model and the previous one, we use both\nto sample during the next annotation iteration. This enables a model comparison \u201cfor free\u201d on new prompts\nand can help to increase diversity when sampling.\nProgressionofModels. Figure11reportstheprogressofourdifferentSFTandthenRLHFversionsfor\nboth Safetyand Helpfulnessaxes, measuredbyour in-houseSafetyand Helpfulnessreward models. On\nthis set of evaluations, we outperform ChatGPT on both axes after RLHF-V3 (harmlessness and helpfulness\n>50%). Despite the aforementioned relevance of using our reward as a point-wise metric, it can arguably be\nbiased in favor of Llama 2-Chat . Therefore, for a fair comparison, we additionally compute the final results\nusingGPT-4toassesswhichgenerationispreferred. TheorderinwhichChatGPTand Llama 2-Chat outputs\nappearedinGPT-4promptarerandomlyswappedtoavoidanybias. Asexpected,thewin-rateinfavorof\nLlama 2-Chat is less pronounced, although obtaining more than a 60% win-rate for our latest Llama 2-Chat .\nThe prompts correspond to a validation set of 1,586and584prompts for safety and helpfulness, respectively.\n3.4.2 Human Evaluation\nHuman evaluation is often considered the gold standardfor judging models fornatural language generation,\nincluding dialogue models. To evaluate the quality of major model versions, we asked human evaluators to\nrate them on helpfulness and safety. We compare the Llama 2-Chat models to open-source models (Falcon,\nMPT MosaicML NLP Team et al. (2023), Vicuna Chiang et al. (2023), as well as closed-source models (Chat-\nGPT(OpenAI,2023)andPaLMAniletal.(2023))onover 4,000singleandmulti-turnprompts. ForChatGPT,\nweuse gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 modelinallgenerations. ForPaLM,weusethe chat-bison-001 modelinall\ngenerations. ThefinalpromptcountforhumanevaluationsforeachmodelisshowninTable32. Seemore\nmethodology details in Appendix, Section A.3.7. The following section shows helpfulness results; safety\nresults are presented in Section 4.4.\nResults. AsshowninFigure12, Llama 2-Chat modelsoutperformopen-sourcemodelsbyasignificant\nmargin on both single turn and multi-turn prompts. Particularly, Llama 2-Chat 7B model outperforms\nMPT-7B-chaton60%oftheprompts. Llama 2-Chat 34Bhasanoverallwinrateofmorethan75%against\nequivalently sized Vicuna-33B and Falcon 40B models.\n18"
            ],
            "reference_answer": "The RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback) versions are significant in the evolution of the Llama 2-Chat model as they indicate the iterative improvements made to the model through different versions of training that incorporate human feedback. These versions are part of a fine-tuning process where the model is adjusted based on the win-rate percentage compared to ChatGPT, with the goal of improving its performance in terms of helpfulness and harmlessness.\n\nAfter the implementation of RLHF-V3, the Llama 2-Chat model's performance in terms of helpfulness and harmlessness metrics surpassed that of ChatGPT. The document states that Llama 2-Chat outperformed ChatGPT on both axes after RLHF-V3, with both harmlessness and helpfulness metrics being greater than 50%. This suggests that the model became more effective and safer in its interactions after the RLHF-V3 iteration, according to the in-house Safety and Helpfulness reward models used for evaluation.
---------------------
Given the context information and not prior knowledge, answer the query.
Query: 4. How does the loss function provided in Llama 2-Chat account for the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process?
Answer:  [/INST] </s>
Setting `pad_token_id` to `eos_token_id`:2 for open-end generation.

**************************************************
** Completion: **

The loss function provided in Llama 2-Chat accounts for the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process by using a binary ranking loss. This loss function takes the difference in scores between the chosen (preferred) response and the rejected response as input and maps it to a probability between 0 and 1 using the sigmoid function. The goal of the model is to maximize the score of the chosen response while minimizing the score of the rejected response. The loss function penalizes the model when the score of the chosen response is not sufficiently higher than the score of the rejected response. By doing so, the model learns to differentiate between high-quality and lower-quality responses based on human preferences, ultimately leading to more helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.
**************************************************

*******start query rewrite
** Prompt: **
<s>[INST] Context information is below.
---------------------
file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

WenotethatinthecontextofRLHFin\nthis study, the role of reward signals is to learn human preference for Llama 2-Chat outputs rather than\nany model outputs. However, in our experiments, we do not observe negative transfer from the open-source\npreferencedatasets."
            ],
            "reference_answer": "In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, the binary ranking label format plays a crucial role in training the reward model to discern between more and less preferred responses. This format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as \"chosen\" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as \"rejected\" (not preferred).\n\nThe significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and safe interactions.\n\nThe loss function provided, \\( L_{ranking} = -\\log(\\sigma(r_{\\theta}(x, y_c) - r_{\\theta}(x, y_r))) \\), uses a binary ranking loss, where \\( r_{\\theta}(x, y) \\) represents the scalar score output for prompt \\( x \\) and completion \\( y \\) with model weights \\( \\theta \\). The \\( y_c \\) is the chosen (preferred) response, and \\( y_r \\) is the rejected response. The function \\( \\sigma \\) represents the sigmoid function, which maps the difference in scores to a probability between 0 and 1.\n\nIn the learning process, the model is trained to maximize the score of the chosen response \\( y_c \\) while minimizing the score of the rejected response \\( y_r \\). The loss function penalizes the model when the score of the chosen response is not sufficiently higher than the score of the rejected response. By doing so, the model learns to differentiate between high-quality and lower-quality responses based on human preferences.\n\nThe chosen and rejected responses play pivotal roles in the model's learning process by providing explicit examples of what is considered a good or bad response in the context of a given prompt. The model uses these examples to adjust its parameters and improve its ability to predict rewards (scores) that reflect human preferences, ultimately leading to more helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Describe the approach taken to improve the accuracy of the Helpfulness reward model when dealing with samples where two responses are more separable. How does the introduction of a margin component in the loss function contribute to this improvement, and where can more detailed analysis on this modification be found?",
            "query_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            },
            "reference_contexts": [
                "DatasetNum. of\nComparisonsAvg. # Turns\nper DialogueAvg. # Tokens\nper ExampleAvg. # Tokens\nin PromptAvg. # Tokens\nin Response\nAnthropic Helpful 122,387 3.0 251.5 17.7 88.4\nAnthropic Harmless 43,966 3.0 152.5 15.7 46.4\nOpenAI Summarize 176,625 1.0 371.1 336.0 35.1\nOpenAI WebGPT 13,333 1.0 237.2 48.3 188.9\nStackExchange 1,038,480 1.0 440.2 200.1 240.2\nStanford SHP 74,882 1.0 338.3 199.5 138.8\nSynthetic GPT-J 33,139 1.0 123.3 13.0 110.3\nMeta (Safety & Helpfulness) 1,418,091 3.9 798.5 31.4 234.1\nTotal 2,919,326 1.6 595.7 108.2 216.9\nTable 6: Statistics of human preference data for reward modeling. We list both the open-source and\ninternally collected human preference data used for reward modeling.

file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Explain the binary comparison protocol used in the human preference data collection for Llama 2-Chat's reward modeling. What are the main reasons for choosing this method over other schemes?",
            "query_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            },
            "reference_contexts": [
                "sampled human preferences, whereby human annotators select which of two model outputs they prefer.\nThis human feedback is subsequently used to train a reward model, which learns patterns in the preferences\nof the human annotators and can then automate preference decisions.\n3.2.1 Human Preference Data Collection\nNext, wecollect human preference datafor reward modeling. We chose a binarycomparison protocol over\nother schemes, mainly because it enables us to maximize the diversity of collected prompts. Still, other\nstrategies are worth considering, which we leave for future work.\nOur annotation procedure proceeds as follows. We ask annotators to first write a prompt, then choose\nbetweentwosampledmodelresponses,basedonprovidedcriteria. Inordertomaximizethediversity,the\ntworesponsestoagivenpromptaresampledfromtwodifferentmodelvariants,andvaryingthetemperature\nhyper-parameter. Inadditiontogivingparticipantsaforcedchoice,wealsoaskannotatorstolabelthedegree\nto which they prefer their chosen response over the alternative: either their choice is significantly better ,better,\nslightly better , ornegligibly better/ unsure .\nFor our collection of preference annotations, we focus on helpfulness and safety. Helpfulness refers to how\nwell Llama 2-Chat responses fulfill users\u2019 requests and provide requested information; safety refers to\nwhether Llama 2-Chat \u2019s responses are unsafe, e.g., \u201cgiving detailed instructions on making a bomb\u201d could\nbe considered helpful but is unsafe according to our safety guidelines. Separating the two allows us to\napplyspecificguidelinestoeachandbetterguideannotators;forexample,oursafetyannotationsprovide\ninstructions to focus on adversarial prompts, among other guidance.\nApart from differences in annotation guidelines, we additionally collect a safety label during the safety stage.\nThis additional information bins model responses into one of three categories: 1) the preferred response\nis safe and the other response is not, 2) both responses are safe, and 3) both responses are unsafe, with\n18%, 47%, and 35% of the safety dataset falling into each bin, respectively. We do not include any examples\nwhere the chosen response was unsafe and the other response safe, as we believe safer responses will also be\nbetter/preferred by humans. Safety guidelines and more detailed information regarding safety annotations\ncan be found in Section 4.2.1.\nHuman annotations were collected in batches on a weekly basis. As we collected more preference data, our\nreward models improved, and we were able to train progressively better versions for Llama 2-Chat (see\ntheresultsinSection5,Figure20). Llama 2-Chat improvementalsoshiftedthemodel\u2019sdatadistribution.\nSince reward model accuracy can quickly degrade if not exposed to this new sample distribution, i.e., from\nhyper-specialization(Scialometal.,2020b),itisimportantbeforeanew Llama 2-Chat tuningiterationto\ngather new preference data using the latest Llama 2-Chat iterations. This step helps keep the reward model\non-distribution and maintain an accurate reward for the latest model.\nInTable6,wereportthestatisticsofrewardmodelingdatathatwecollectedovertime,andpresentthem\nagainst multiple open-source preference datasets including Anthropic Helpful and Harmless (Bai et al.,\n2022a), OpenAISummarize(Stiennon etal., 2020),OpenAI WebGPT(Nakanoet al.,2021), StackExchange\n(Lambert et al., 2023), Stanford Human Preferences (Ethayarajh et al., 2022), and Synthetic GPT-J (Havrilla).\nWe collected a large dataset ofover 1million binary comparisons based on humansapplyingour specified\nguidelines, which we refer to as Metareward modeling data. Note that the number of tokens in prompts and\nanswers differs depending on the text domain.
---------------------
Given the context information and not prior knowledge, answer the query.
Query: 1. What is the binary ranking label format used in Llama 2-Chat for reward modeling?
Answer:  [/INST] </s>
Setting `pad_token_id` to `eos_token_id`:2 for open-end generation.

**************************************************
** Completion: **

The binary ranking label format used in Llama 2-Chat for reward modeling involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as "chosen" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as "rejected" (not preferred). The significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.
**************************************************

duration:6.858387470245361, query1:1. What is the binary ranking label format used in Llama 2-Chat for reward modeling?
<IPython.core.display.Markdown object>
** Prompt: **
<s>[INST] Context information is below.
---------------------
file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

WenotethatinthecontextofRLHFin\nthis study, the role of reward signals is to learn human preference for Llama 2-Chat outputs rather than\nany model outputs. However, in our experiments, we do not observe negative transfer from the open-source\npreferencedatasets."
            ],
            "reference_answer": "In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, the binary ranking label format plays a crucial role in training the reward model to discern between more and less preferred responses. This format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as \"chosen\" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as \"rejected\" (not preferred).\n\nThe significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and safe interactions.\n\nThe loss function provided, \\( L_{ranking} = -\\log(\\sigma(r_{\\theta}(x, y_c) - r_{\\theta}(x, y_r))) \\), uses a binary ranking loss, where \\( r_{\\theta}(x, y) \\) represents the scalar score output for prompt \\( x \\) and completion \\( y \\) with model weights \\( \\theta \\). The \\( y_c \\) is the chosen (preferred) response, and \\( y_r \\) is the rejected response. The function \\( \\sigma \\) represents the sigmoid function, which maps the difference in scores to a probability between 0 and 1.\n\nIn the learning process, the model is trained to maximize the score of the chosen response \\( y_c \\) while minimizing the score of the rejected response \\( y_r \\). The loss function penalizes the model when the score of the chosen response is not sufficiently higher than the score of the rejected response. By doing so, the model learns to differentiate between high-quality and lower-quality responses based on human preferences.\n\nThe chosen and rejected responses play pivotal roles in the model's learning process by providing explicit examples of what is considered a good or bad response in the context of a given prompt. The model uses these examples to adjust its parameters and improve its ability to predict rewards (scores) that reflect human preferences, ultimately leading to more helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Describe the approach taken to improve the accuracy of the Helpfulness reward model when dealing with samples where two responses are more separable. How does the introduction of a margin component in the loss function contribute to this improvement, and where can more detailed analysis on this modification be found?",
            "query_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            },
            "reference_contexts": [
                "DatasetNum. of\nComparisonsAvg. # Turns\nper DialogueAvg. # Tokens\nper ExampleAvg. # Tokens\nin PromptAvg. # Tokens\nin Response\nAnthropic Helpful 122,387 3.0 251.5 17.7 88.4\nAnthropic Harmless 43,966 3.0 152.5 15.7 46.4\nOpenAI Summarize 176,625 1.0 371.1 336.0 35.1\nOpenAI WebGPT 13,333 1.0 237.2 48.3 188.9\nStackExchange 1,038,480 1.0 440.2 200.1 240.2\nStanford SHP 74,882 1.0 338.3 199.5 138.8\nSynthetic GPT-J 33,139 1.0 123.3 13.0 110.3\nMeta (Safety & Helpfulness) 1,418,091 3.9 798.5 31.4 234.1\nTotal 2,919,326 1.6 595.7 108.2 216.9\nTable 6: Statistics of human preference data for reward modeling. We list both the open-source and\ninternally collected human preference data used for reward modeling.

file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

Figure6reportsthesetrends,showingtheexpectedresultthatlarger\nmodels obtain higher performance for a similar volume of data. More importantly, the scaling performance\nhasnotyetplateauedgiventheexistingvolumeofdataannotationusedfortraining,asignalthatthereis\nroom for more improvement with more annotations. We note that reward model accuracy is one of the most\nimportant proxies for the final performance of Llama 2-Chat . While best practices for comprehensively\nevaluating a generative model is an open research question, the ranking task of the reward has no ambiguity.\nTherefore, everything else being equal, an improvement of the reward model can be directly translated into\nan improvement for Llama 2-Chat .\n3.2.3 Iterative Fine-Tuning\nAs we received more batches of human preference data annotation, we were able to train better reward\nmodelsandcollectmoreprompts. WethereforetrainedsuccessiveversionsforRLHFmodels,referredto\nhere as RLHF-V1, ..., RLHF-V5.\nWe explored RLHF fine-tuning with two main algorithms:\n\u2022Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) (Schulman et al., 2017), the standard in RLHF literature.\n\u2022RejectionSamplingfine-tuning . Wesample Koutputsfromthemodelandselectthebestcandidate\nwith our reward, consistent with Bai et al. (2022b). The same re-ranking strategy for LLMs was also\nproposedinDengetal.(2019),wheretherewardisseenasanenergyfunction. Here,wegoonestep\nfurther,anduse theselectedoutputsfora gradientupdate. For eachprompt,thesample obtaining\n13"
            ],
            "reference_answer": "The two main algorithms used for iterative fine-tuning of RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback) models as mentioned in the document are:\n\n1. Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO): This is a standard algorithm in RLHF literature, which is a type of policy gradient method for reinforcement learning. PPO aims to take the biggest possible step to improve policy performance without causing the policy to become too different from its previous version, hence the term \"proximal.\" It does this by optimizing a surrogate objective function and using a clipped probability ratio, which prevents the updates from being too large and ensures stable and reliable improvement.\n\n2. Rejection Sampling fine-tuning: This method involves sampling K outputs from the model and selecting the best candidate according to the reward model, which is consistent with the approach described by Bai et al. (2022b). The reward is seen as an energy function, and the selected outputs are then used for a gradient update. For each prompt, the sample that obtains the highest reward is chosen for the update. This approach is a re-ranking strategy where multiple outputs are generated, and the most suitable one is picked based on the reward model's evaluation.\n\nKey differences between PPO and Rejection Sampling fine-tuning:\n\n- **Algorithm Type**: PPO is a policy gradient method that directly adjusts the policy by computing gradients, whereas Rejection Sampling is a re-ranking strategy that generates multiple outputs and selects the best one based on a reward model.\n  \n- **Update Mechanism**: PPO uses a clipped probability ratio to ensure the updates are significant but not too large, focusing on maintaining a balance between exploration and exploitation. Rejection Sampling fine-tuning, on the other hand, involves generating multiple outputs and using the reward model to pick the best one for the gradient update, which is more of a selection process from a set of generated possibilities.\n\n- **Objective**: PPO optimizes a surrogate objective function to improve policy performance, while Rejection Sampling fine-tuning uses the reward model as an energy function to evaluate and select the best output for updates.\n\n- **Complexity**: PPO is generally considered more complex due to its surrogate objective and clipping mechanism, while Rejection Sampling fine-tuning is conceptually simpler as it involves sampling and selecting the best output based on the reward.\n\n- **Stability**: PPO is designed to provide stable learning updates, whereas the stability of Rejection Sampling fine-tuning would depend on the variance of the outputs generated and the accuracy of the reward model in selecting the best candidate.",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Explain the concept of Rejection Sampling as used in the fine-tuning process of the Llama 2-Chat model.
---------------------
Given the context information and not prior knowledge, answer the query.
Query: 2. How does the binary ranking label format affect the training of the reward model in Llama 2-Chat?
Answer:  [/INST] </s>
Setting `pad_token_id` to `eos_token_id`:2 for open-end generation.

**************************************************
** Completion: **

The binary ranking label format plays a crucial role in training the reward model in Llama 2-Chat. The format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as "chosen" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as "rejected" (not preferred). This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat. The loss function provided, \\( L_{ranking} = -\\log(\\sigma(r_{\\theta}(x, y_c) - r_{\\theta}(x, y_r))) \\), uses a binary ranking loss, where \\( r_{\\theta}(x, y) \\) represents the scalar score output for prompt \\( x \\) and completion \\( y \\) with model weights \\( \\theta \\). The \\( y_c \\) is the chosen (preferred) response, and \\( y_r \\) is the rejected response. The function \\( \\sigma \\) represents the sigmoid function, which maps the difference in
**************************************************

duration:12.257861852645874, query1:2. How does the binary ranking label format affect the training of the reward model in Llama 2-Chat?
<IPython.core.display.Markdown object>
** Prompt: **
<s>[INST] Context information is below.
---------------------
file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

WenotethatinthecontextofRLHFin\nthis study, the role of reward signals is to learn human preference for Llama 2-Chat outputs rather than\nany model outputs. However, in our experiments, we do not observe negative transfer from the open-source\npreferencedatasets."
            ],
            "reference_answer": "In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, the binary ranking label format plays a crucial role in training the reward model to discern between more and less preferred responses. This format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as \"chosen\" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as \"rejected\" (not preferred).\n\nThe significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and safe interactions.\n\nThe loss function provided, \\( L_{ranking} = -\\log(\\sigma(r_{\\theta}(x, y_c) - r_{\\theta}(x, y_r))) \\), uses a binary ranking loss, where \\( r_{\\theta}(x, y) \\) represents the scalar score output for prompt \\( x \\) and completion \\( y \\) with model weights \\( \\theta \\). The \\( y_c \\) is the chosen (preferred) response, and \\( y_r \\) is the rejected response. The function \\( \\sigma \\) represents the sigmoid function, which maps the difference in scores to a probability between 0 and 1.\n\nIn the learning process, the model is trained to maximize the score of the chosen response \\( y_c \\) while minimizing the score of the rejected response \\( y_r \\). The loss function penalizes the model when the score of the chosen response is not sufficiently higher than the score of the rejected response. By doing so, the model learns to differentiate between high-quality and lower-quality responses based on human preferences.\n\nThe chosen and rejected responses play pivotal roles in the model's learning process by providing explicit examples of what is considered a good or bad response in the context of a given prompt. The model uses these examples to adjust its parameters and improve its ability to predict rewards (scores) that reflect human preferences, ultimately leading to more helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Describe the approach taken to improve the accuracy of the Helpfulness reward model when dealing with samples where two responses are more separable. How does the introduction of a margin component in the loss function contribute to this improvement, and where can more detailed analysis on this modification be found?",
            "query_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            },
            "reference_contexts": [
                "DatasetNum. of\nComparisonsAvg. # Turns\nper DialogueAvg. # Tokens\nper ExampleAvg. # Tokens\nin PromptAvg. # Tokens\nin Response\nAnthropic Helpful 122,387 3.0 251.5 17.7 88.4\nAnthropic Harmless 43,966 3.0 152.5 15.7 46.4\nOpenAI Summarize 176,625 1.0 371.1 336.0 35.1\nOpenAI WebGPT 13,333 1.0 237.2 48.3 188.9\nStackExchange 1,038,480 1.0 440.2 200.1 240.2\nStanford SHP 74,882 1.0 338.3 199.5 138.8\nSynthetic GPT-J 33,139 1.0 123.3 13.0 110.3\nMeta (Safety & Helpfulness) 1,418,091 3.9 798.5 31.4 234.1\nTotal 2,919,326 1.6 595.7 108.2 216.9\nTable 6: Statistics of human preference data for reward modeling. We list both the open-source and\ninternally collected human preference data used for reward modeling.

file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

Summarization and online forum data generally have longer\nprompts, while dialogue-style prompts are usually shorter. Compared to existing open-source datasets, our\npreference data features more conversation turns, and are longer, on average.\n3.2.2 Reward Modeling\nThe reward model takes a model response and its corresponding prompt (including contexts from previous\nturns) as inputs and outputs a scalar score to indicate the quality (e.g., helpfulness and safety) of the model\ngeneration. Leveragingsuchresponsescoresasrewards,wecanoptimize Llama 2-Chat duringRLHFfor\nbetter human preference alignment and improved helpfulness and safety."
            ],
            "reference_answer": "In the context of Llama 2-Chat's reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) process, the reward model plays a crucial role in aligning the chatbot's responses with human preferences. The reward model is trained using data collected from human annotators who evaluate pairs of model-generated responses based on specific criteria such as helpfulness and safety. These human annotators are asked to choose between two responses to a given prompt and rate their preference, providing a rich dataset of binary comparisons.\n\nThe reward model takes as input a model response along with its corresponding prompt, which may include context from previous conversation turns. It then outputs a scalar score that indicates the perceived quality of the response in terms of the criteria set forth during the data collection, such as helpfulness and safety.\n\nThese scalar scores are used as rewards in the RLHF process. Essentially, Llama 2-Chat is fine-tuned through reinforcement learning, where the actions are the generated responses, and the rewards are the scalar scores provided by the reward model. By optimizing the chatbot's parameters to maximize these rewards, Llama 2-Chat is trained to produce responses that are more aligned with human preferences. This process iteratively improves the chatbot's performance, as it learns to generate responses that are more likely to be preferred by humans based on the patterns identified in the reward model.\n\nIn summary, the reward model in the RLHF process for Llama 2-Chat serves to automate the preference decisions of human annotators, providing a mechanism for the chatbot to learn from human feedback and adjust its responses to be more helpful and safe, thereby better aligning with human preferences.",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Explain the concept of Metareward modeling data as described in the document. How does the variability in token numbers across different text domains (like summarization, online forums, and dialogue-style prompts) impact the dataset?",
            "query_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            },
            "reference_contexts": [
                "We collected a large dataset ofover 1million binary comparisons based on humansapplyingour specified\nguidelines, which we refer to as Metareward modeling data. Note that the number of tokens in prompts and\nanswers differs depending on the text domain. Summarization and online forum data generally have longer\nprompts, while dialogue-style prompts are usually shorter. Compared to existing open-source datasets, our\npreference data features more conversation turns, and are longer, on average.\n3.2.2 Reward Modeling\nThe reward model takes a model response and its corresponding prompt (including contexts from previous\nturns) as inputs and outputs a scalar score to indicate the quality (e.g., helpfulness and safety) of the model\ngeneration. Leveragingsuchresponsescoresasrewards,wecanoptimize Llama 2-Chat duringRLHFfor\nbetter human preference alignment and improved helpfulness and safety.\nOthers have found that helpfulness and safety sometimes trade off (Bai et al., 2022a), which can make it\nchallengingforasinglerewardmodeltoperformwellonboth. Toaddressthis,wetraintwoseparatereward\nmodels, one optimized for helpfulness (referred to as Helpfulness RM ) and another for safety ( Safety RM ).\nWe initialize our reward models from pretrained chat model checkpoints, as it ensures that both models\nbenefitfromknowledgeacquiredinpretraining.
---------------------
Given the context information and not prior knowledge, answer the query.
Query: 3. What is the role of the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process in Llama 2-Chat?
Answer:  [/INST] </s>
Setting `pad_token_id` to `eos_token_id`:2 for open-end generation.

**************************************************
** Completion: **

The chosen and rejected responses play a crucial role in the model's learning process in Llama 2-Chat. In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling, the binary ranking label format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as "chosen" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as "rejected" (not preferred). The significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat. The chosen and rejected responses provide explicit examples of what is considered a good or bad response in the context of a given prompt, allowing the model to adjust its parameters and improve its ability to predict rewards (scores) that reflect human preferences, ultimately leading to more helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.
**************************************************

duration:11.052780628204346, query1:3. What is the role of the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process in Llama 2-Chat?
<IPython.core.display.Markdown object>
** Prompt: **
<s>[INST] Context information is below.
---------------------
file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

WenotethatinthecontextofRLHFin\nthis study, the role of reward signals is to learn human preference for Llama 2-Chat outputs rather than\nany model outputs. However, in our experiments, we do not observe negative transfer from the open-source\npreferencedatasets."
            ],
            "reference_answer": "In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, the binary ranking label format plays a crucial role in training the reward model to discern between more and less preferred responses. This format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as \"chosen\" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as \"rejected\" (not preferred).\n\nThe significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and safe interactions.\n\nThe loss function provided, \\( L_{ranking} = -\\log(\\sigma(r_{\\theta}(x, y_c) - r_{\\theta}(x, y_r))) \\), uses a binary ranking loss, where \\( r_{\\theta}(x, y) \\) represents the scalar score output for prompt \\( x \\) and completion \\( y \\) with model weights \\( \\theta \\). The \\( y_c \\) is the chosen (preferred) response, and \\( y_r \\) is the rejected response. The function \\( \\sigma \\) represents the sigmoid function, which maps the difference in scores to a probability between 0 and 1.\n\nIn the learning process, the model is trained to maximize the score of the chosen response \\( y_c \\) while minimizing the score of the rejected response \\( y_r \\). The loss function penalizes the model when the score of the chosen response is not sufficiently higher than the score of the rejected response. By doing so, the model learns to differentiate between high-quality and lower-quality responses based on human preferences.\n\nThe chosen and rejected responses play pivotal roles in the model's learning process by providing explicit examples of what is considered a good or bad response in the context of a given prompt. The model uses these examples to adjust its parameters and improve its ability to predict rewards (scores) that reflect human preferences, ultimately leading to more helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Describe the approach taken to improve the accuracy of the Helpfulness reward model when dealing with samples where two responses are more separable. How does the introduction of a margin component in the loss function contribute to this improvement, and where can more detailed analysis on this modification be found?",
            "query_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            },
            "reference_contexts": [
                "DatasetNum. of\nComparisonsAvg. # Turns\nper DialogueAvg. # Tokens\nper ExampleAvg. # Tokens\nin PromptAvg. # Tokens\nin Response\nAnthropic Helpful 122,387 3.0 251.5 17.7 88.4\nAnthropic Harmless 43,966 3.0 152.5 15.7 46.4\nOpenAI Summarize 176,625 1.0 371.1 336.0 35.1\nOpenAI WebGPT 13,333 1.0 237.2 48.3 188.9\nStackExchange 1,038,480 1.0 440.2 200.1 240.2\nStanford SHP 74,882 1.0 338.3 199.5 138.8\nSynthetic GPT-J 33,139 1.0 123.3 13.0 110.3\nMeta (Safety & Helpfulness) 1,418,091 3.9 798.5 31.4 234.1\nTotal 2,919,326 1.6 595.7 108.2 216.9\nTable 6: Statistics of human preference data for reward modeling. We list both the open-source and\ninternally collected human preference data used for reward modeling.

file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

We show the evolution after multiple iterations fine-tuning for the\nwin-rate%of Llama 2-Chat comparedtoChatGPT. Left: thejudgeisourrewardmodel,whichmayfavor\nour model, and right, the judge is GPT-4, which should be more neutral.\non diverse open-source Reward Modeling datasets. We have not yet observed any such divergence, and\nhypothesize that iterative model updates may be helping to prevent this.\nAs a last verification step to ensure no regression between our new model and the previous one, we use both\nto sample during the next annotation iteration. This enables a model comparison \u201cfor free\u201d on new prompts\nand can help to increase diversity when sampling.\nProgressionofModels. Figure11reportstheprogressofourdifferentSFTandthenRLHFversionsfor\nboth Safetyand Helpfulnessaxes, measuredbyour in-houseSafetyand Helpfulnessreward models. On\nthis set of evaluations, we outperform ChatGPT on both axes after RLHF-V3 (harmlessness and helpfulness\n>50%). Despite the aforementioned relevance of using our reward as a point-wise metric, it can arguably be\nbiased in favor of Llama 2-Chat . Therefore, for a fair comparison, we additionally compute the final results\nusingGPT-4toassesswhichgenerationispreferred. TheorderinwhichChatGPTand Llama 2-Chat outputs\nappearedinGPT-4promptarerandomlyswappedtoavoidanybias. Asexpected,thewin-rateinfavorof\nLlama 2-Chat is less pronounced, although obtaining more than a 60% win-rate for our latest Llama 2-Chat .\nThe prompts correspond to a validation set of 1,586and584prompts for safety and helpfulness, respectively.\n3.4.2 Human Evaluation\nHuman evaluation is often considered the gold standardfor judging models fornatural language generation,\nincluding dialogue models. To evaluate the quality of major model versions, we asked human evaluators to\nrate them on helpfulness and safety. We compare the Llama 2-Chat models to open-source models (Falcon,\nMPT MosaicML NLP Team et al. (2023), Vicuna Chiang et al. (2023), as well as closed-source models (Chat-\nGPT(OpenAI,2023)andPaLMAniletal.(2023))onover 4,000singleandmulti-turnprompts. ForChatGPT,\nweuse gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 modelinallgenerations. ForPaLM,weusethe chat-bison-001 modelinall\ngenerations. ThefinalpromptcountforhumanevaluationsforeachmodelisshowninTable32. Seemore\nmethodology details in Appendix, Section A.3.7. The following section shows helpfulness results; safety\nresults are presented in Section 4.4.\nResults. AsshowninFigure12, Llama 2-Chat modelsoutperformopen-sourcemodelsbyasignificant\nmargin on both single turn and multi-turn prompts. Particularly, Llama 2-Chat 7B model outperforms\nMPT-7B-chaton60%oftheprompts. Llama 2-Chat 34Bhasanoverallwinrateofmorethan75%against\nequivalently sized Vicuna-33B and Falcon 40B models.\n18"
            ],
            "reference_answer": "The RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback) versions are significant in the evolution of the Llama 2-Chat model as they indicate the iterative improvements made to the model through different versions of training that incorporate human feedback. These versions are part of a fine-tuning process where the model is adjusted based on the win-rate percentage compared to ChatGPT, with the goal of improving its performance in terms of helpfulness and harmlessness.\n\nAfter the implementation of RLHF-V3, the Llama 2-Chat model's performance in terms of helpfulness and harmlessness metrics surpassed that of ChatGPT. The document states that Llama 2-Chat outperformed ChatGPT on both axes after RLHF-V3, with both harmlessness and helpfulness metrics being greater than 50%. This suggests that the model became more effective and safer in its interactions after the RLHF-V3 iteration, according to the in-house Safety and Helpfulness reward models used for evaluation.
---------------------
Given the context information and not prior knowledge, answer the query.
Query: 4. How does the loss function provided in Llama 2-Chat account for the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process?
Answer:  [/INST] </s>
Setting `pad_token_id` to `eos_token_id`:2 for open-end generation.

**************************************************
** Completion: **

The loss function provided in Llama 2-Chat accounts for the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process by using a binary ranking loss. This loss function takes the difference in scores between the chosen (preferred) response and the rejected response as input and maps it to a probability between 0 and 1 using the sigmoid function. The goal of the model is to maximize the score of the chosen response while minimizing the score of the rejected response. The loss function penalizes the model when the score of the chosen response is not sufficiently higher than the score of the rejected response. By doing so, the model learns to differentiate between high-quality and lower-quality responses based on human preferences, ultimately leading to more helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.
**************************************************

duration:8.421236515045166, query1:4. How does the loss function provided in Llama 2-Chat account for the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process?
<IPython.core.display.Markdown object>
*******end query rewrite
** Prompt: **
<s>[INST] Context information is below.
---------------------
file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

WenotethatinthecontextofRLHFin\nthis study, the role of reward signals is to learn human preference for Llama 2-Chat outputs rather than\nany model outputs. However, in our experiments, we do not observe negative transfer from the open-source\npreferencedatasets."
            ],
            "reference_answer": "In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, the binary ranking label format plays a crucial role in training the reward model to discern between more and less preferred responses. This format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as \"chosen\" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as \"rejected\" (not preferred).\n\nThe significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and safe interactions.\n\nThe loss function provided, \\( L_{ranking} = -\\log(\\sigma(r_{\\theta}(x, y_c) - r_{\\theta}(x, y_r))) \\), uses a binary ranking loss, where \\( r_{\\theta}(x, y) \\) represents the scalar score output for prompt \\( x \\) and completion \\( y \\) with model weights \\( \\theta \\). The \\( y_c \\) is the chosen (preferred) response, and \\( y_r \\) is the rejected response. The function \\( \\sigma \\) represents the sigmoid function, which maps the difference in scores to a probability between 0 and 1.\n\nIn the learning process, the model is trained to maximize the score of the chosen response \\( y_c \\) while minimizing the score of the rejected response \\( y_r \\). The loss function penalizes the model when the score of the chosen response is not sufficiently higher than the score of the rejected response. By doing so, the model learns to differentiate between high-quality and lower-quality responses based on human preferences.\n\nThe chosen and rejected responses play pivotal roles in the model's learning process by providing explicit examples of what is considered a good or bad response in the context of a given prompt. The model uses these examples to adjust its parameters and improve its ability to predict rewards (scores) that reflect human preferences, ultimately leading to more helpful and appropriate responses in user interactions with Llama 2-Chat.",
            "reference_answer_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            }
        },
        {
            "query": "Describe the approach taken to improve the accuracy of the Helpfulness reward model when dealing with samples where two responses are more separable. How does the introduction of a margin component in the loss function contribute to this improvement, and where can more detailed analysis on this modification be found?",
            "query_by": {
                "model_name": "gpt-4-1106-preview",
                "type": "ai"
            },
            "reference_contexts": [
                "DatasetNum. of\nComparisonsAvg. # Turns\nper DialogueAvg. # Tokens\nper ExampleAvg. # Tokens\nin PromptAvg. # Tokens\nin Response\nAnthropic Helpful 122,387 3.0 251.5 17.7 88.4\nAnthropic Harmless 43,966 3.0 152.5 15.7 46.4\nOpenAI Summarize 176,625 1.0 371.1 336.0 35.1\nOpenAI WebGPT 13,333 1.0 237.2 48.3 188.9\nStackExchange 1,038,480 1.0 440.2 200.1 240.2\nStanford SHP 74,882 1.0 338.3 199.5 138.8\nSynthetic GPT-J 33,139 1.0 123.3 13.0 110.3\nMeta (Safety & Helpfulness) 1,418,091 3.9 798.5 31.4 234.1\nTotal 2,919,326 1.6 595.7 108.2 216.9\nTable 6: Statistics of human preference data for reward modeling. We list both the open-source and\ninternally collected human preference data used for reward modeling.

file_path: /home/ubuntu/uw-llama/data/llama2_paper/llmama2_paper.json

We list both the open-source and\ninternally collected human preference data used for reward modeling. Note that a binary human preference\ncomparisoncontains2responses(chosenandrejected)sharingthesameprompt(andpreviousdialogue).\nEachexampleconsistsofaprompt(includingpreviousdialogueifavailable)andaresponse,whichisthe\ninputoftherewardmodel. Wereportthenumberofcomparisons,theaveragenumberofturnsperdialogue,\nthe average number of tokens per example, per prompt and per response. More details on Meta helpfulness\nand safety data per batch can be found in Appendix A.3.1.\nknows. Thispreventscaseswhere, forinstance, thetwomodelswouldhaveaninformationmismatch, which\ncould result in favoring hallucinations. The model architecture and hyper-parameters are identical to those\nofthepretrainedlanguagemodels,exceptthattheclassificationheadfornext-tokenpredictionisreplaced\nwith a regression head for outputting a scalar reward.\nTraining Objectives. To train the reward model, we convert our collected pairwise human preference data\ninto a binary ranking label format (i.e., chosen & rejected) and enforce the chosen response to have a higher\nscore than its counterpart. We used a binary ranking loss consistent with Ouyang et al. (2022):\nLranking =\u2212log(\u03c3(r\u03b8(x, yc)\u2212r\u03b8(x, yr))) (1)\nwhere r\u03b8(x, y)is the scalar score output for prompt xand completion ywith model weights \u03b8.ycis the\npreferred response that annotators choose and yris the rejected counterpart.\nBuilt on top of this binary ranking loss, we further modify it separately for better helpfulness and safety\nrewardmodelsasfollows. Giventhatourpreferenceratingsisdecomposedasascaleoffourpoints(e.g.,\nsignificantly better ), as presented in Section 3.2.1, it can be useful to leverage this information to explicitly\nteachtherewardmodeltoassignmorediscrepantscorestothegenerationsthathavemoredifferences. To\ndo so, we further add a margin component in the loss:\nLranking =\u2212log(\u03c3(r\u03b8(x, yc)\u2212r\u03b8(x, yr)\u2212m(r))) (2)\nwhere the margin m(r)is a discrete function of the preference rating. Naturally, we use a large margin\nfor pairs with distinct responses, and a smaller one for those with similar responses (shown in Table 27).\nWefoundthismargincomponentcanimproveHelpfulnessrewardmodelaccuracyespeciallyonsamples\nwheretworesponsesaremoreseparable. MoredetailedablationandanalysiscanbefoundinTable28in\nAppendix A.3.3.\nDataComposition. Wecombineournewlycollecteddatawithexistingopen-sourcepreferencedatasets\ntoformalargertrainingdataset. Initially,open-sourcedatasetswereusedtobootstrapourrewardmodels\nwhilewewereintheprocessofcollectingpreferenceannotationdata. WenotethatinthecontextofRLHFin\nthis study, the role of reward signals is to learn human preference for Llama 2-Chat outputs rather than\nany model outputs. However, in our experiments, we do not observe negative transfer from the open-source\npreferencedatasets."
            ],
            "reference_answer": "In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, the binary ranking label format plays a crucial role in training the reward model to discern between more and less preferred responses. This format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as \"chosen\" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as \"rejected\" (not preferred).\n\nThe significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment.
---------------------
Given the context information and not prior knowledge, answer the query.
Query: In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, explain the significance of the binary ranking label format and how it affects the training of the reward model. Refer to the loss function provided and discuss the role of the chosen and rejected responses in the model's learning process.
Answer:  [/INST] </s>

**************************************************
** Completion: **

In the context of the human preference data used for reward modeling in Llama 2-Chat, the binary ranking label format plays a crucial role in training the reward model to discern between more and less preferred responses. This format involves comparing pairs of responses to the same prompt, where one response is labeled as "chosen" (preferred by human annotators) and the other as "rejected" (not preferred).

The significance of this binary ranking label format lies in its ability to provide clear guidance to the reward model on which responses are considered better according to human judgment. This direct feedback helps the model learn to assign higher scores to responses that align with human preferences, which is essential for the model's ability to generate helpful and safe interactions.

The loss function provided, \\( L_{ranking} = -\\log(\\sigma(r_{\\theta}(x, y_c) - r_{\\theta}(x, y_r))) \\), uses a binary ranking loss, where \\( r_{\\theta}(x, y) \\) represents the scalar score output for prompt \\( x \\) and completion \\( y \\) with model weights \\( \\theta \\). The \\( y
**************************************************

duration:12.180116891860962, type(reponse):<class 'llama_index.core.base.response.schema.Response'>

[logan-markewich]

Every time you see ** Prompt: ** is an LLM call

There is 10 LLm calls above

[lambda7xx]

Every time you see ** Prompt: ** is an LLM call

There is 10 LLm calls above

Got you. thanks. btw, what do you mean llm.complete("input"). the input is my query? or just a "input"? i try to add this llm.complete("input") and llm.complete(my_query) in my code, it does not do anything.

[logan-markewich]

I mean, pass in some prompt, and you'll see how long it takes to generate a response (this is a direct llm call to generate text)

[lambda7xx]

I mean, pass in some prompt, and you'll see how long it takes to generate a response (this is a direct llm call to generate text)

Got it.