Close Menu
    DevStackTipsDevStackTips
    • Home
    • News & Updates
      1. Tech & Work
      2. View All

      Sunshine And March Vibes (2025 Wallpapers Edition)

      May 16, 2025

      The Case For Minimal WordPress Setups: A Contrarian View On Theme Frameworks

      May 16, 2025

      How To Fix Largest Contentful Paint Issues With Subpart Analysis

      May 16, 2025

      How To Prevent WordPress SQL Injection Attacks

      May 16, 2025

      Microsoft has closed its “Experience Center” store in Sydney, Australia — as it ramps up a continued digital growth campaign

      May 16, 2025

      Bing Search APIs to be “decommissioned completely” as Microsoft urges developers to use its Azure agentic AI alternative

      May 16, 2025

      Microsoft might kill the Surface Laptop Studio as production is quietly halted

      May 16, 2025

      Minecraft licensing robbed us of this controversial NFL schedule release video

      May 16, 2025
    • Development
      1. Algorithms & Data Structures
      2. Artificial Intelligence
      3. Back-End Development
      4. Databases
      5. Front-End Development
      6. Libraries & Frameworks
      7. Machine Learning
      8. Security
      9. Software Engineering
      10. Tools & IDEs
      11. Web Design
      12. Web Development
      13. Web Security
      14. Programming Languages
        • PHP
        • JavaScript
      Featured

      The power of generators

      May 16, 2025
      Recent

      The power of generators

      May 16, 2025

      Simplify Factory Associations with Laravel’s UseFactory Attribute

      May 16, 2025

      This Week in Laravel: React Native, PhpStorm Junie, and more

      May 16, 2025
    • Operating Systems
      1. Windows
      2. Linux
      3. macOS
      Featured

      Microsoft has closed its “Experience Center” store in Sydney, Australia — as it ramps up a continued digital growth campaign

      May 16, 2025
      Recent

      Microsoft has closed its “Experience Center” store in Sydney, Australia — as it ramps up a continued digital growth campaign

      May 16, 2025

      Bing Search APIs to be “decommissioned completely” as Microsoft urges developers to use its Azure agentic AI alternative

      May 16, 2025

      Microsoft might kill the Surface Laptop Studio as production is quietly halted

      May 16, 2025
    • Learning Resources
      • Books
      • Cheatsheets
      • Tutorials & Guides
    Home»Development»This AI Research from Google DeepMind Explores the Performance Gap between Online and Offline Methods for AI Alignment

    This AI Research from Google DeepMind Explores the Performance Gap between Online and Offline Methods for AI Alignment

    May 18, 2024

    RLHF is the standard approach for aligning LLMs. However, recent advances in offline alignment methods, such as direct preference optimization (DPO) and its variants, challenge the necessity of on-policy sampling in RLHF. Offline methods, which align LLMs using pre-existing datasets without active online interaction, have shown practical efficiency and are simpler and cheaper to implement. This raises the question of whether online RL is essential for AI alignment. Comparing online and offline methods is complex due to their different computational demands, necessitating careful calibration of the budget spent to measure performance fairly.

    Researchers from Google DeepMind demonstrated that online methods outperform offline methods in their initial experiments, prompting further investigation into this performance gap. Through controlled experiments, they found that factors like offline data coverage and quality must fully explain the discrepancy. Unlike online methods, offline methods excel in pairwise classification but need help with generation. The gap persists regardless of loss function type and model scaling. This suggests that on-policy sampling is crucial for AI alignment, highlighting challenges in offline alignment. The study uses KL divergence from the supervised fine-tuned (SFT) policy to compare performance across algorithms and budgets, revealing persistent differences.

    The study complements previous work on RLHF by comparing online and offline RLHF algorithms.  The researchers identify a persistent performance gap between online and offline methods, even when using different loss functions and scaling policy networks. While previous studies noted challenges in offline RL, their findings emphasize that they extend to RLHF. 

    The study compares online and offline alignment methods using the IPO loss across various datasets, examining their performance under Goodhart’s law. The IPO loss involves optimizing the weight of winning responses over losing ones, with differences in sampling processes defining the online and offline methods. Online algorithms sample responses on policy, while offline algorithms use a fixed dataset. Experiments reveal that online algorithms achieve better trade-offs between KL divergence and performance, using the KL budget more efficiently and achieving higher peak performance. Several hypotheses are proposed to explain these discrepancies, such as data coverage diversity and sub-optimal offline datasets.

    The hypothesis posits that the performance discrepancy between online and offline algorithms can be partially attributed to the classification accuracy of the proxy preference model compared to the policy itself. Firstly, the proxy preference model tends to achieve higher classification accuracy than the policy when used as a classifier. Secondly, it proposes that this difference in classification accuracy contributes to the observed performance gap between online and offline algorithms. In essence, it suggests that better classification leads to better performance, but this hypothesis needs to be further examined and validated through empirical evidence.

    In conclusion, the study highlights the critical role of on-policy sampling in effectively aligning LLMs and exposes the challenges associated with offline alignment approaches. The researchers debunked several commonly held beliefs about the performance gap between online and offline algorithms through rigorous experimentation and hypothesis testing. They emphasized the importance of on-policy data generation for enhancing policy learning efficiency. However, they also argue that offline algorithms can improve by adopting strategies that mimic online learning processes. This opens avenues for further exploration, such as hybrid approaches combining the strengths of both online and offline methods and deeper theoretical investigations into reinforcement learning for human feedback.

    Check out the Paper. All credit for this research goes to the researchers of this project. Also, don’t forget to follow us on Twitter. Join our Telegram Channel, Discord Channel, and LinkedIn Group.

    If you like our work, you will love our newsletter..

    Don’t Forget to join our 42k+ ML SubReddit

    The post This AI Research from Google DeepMind Explores the Performance Gap between Online and Offline Methods for AI Alignment appeared first on MarkTechPost.

    Source: Read More 

    Facebook Twitter Reddit Email Copy Link
    Previous ArticleResearchers from Cerebras & Neural Magic Introduce Sparse Llama: The First Production LLM based on Llama at 70% Sparsity
    Next Article SpeechVerse: A Multimodal AI Framework that Enables LLMs to Follow Natural Language Instructions for Performing Diverse Speech-Processing Tasks

    Related Posts

    Security

    Nmap 7.96 Launches with Lightning-Fast DNS and 612 Scripts

    May 17, 2025
    Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs)

    CVE-2025-40906 – MongoDB BSON Serialization BSON::XS Multiple Vulnerabilities

    May 17, 2025
    Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

    Continue Reading

    PhpStorm 2024.1 Is Released With a Integrated Terminal, Local AI Code Completion, and More

    Development

    Critical SQL Injection Vulnerability Found in ADOdb PHP Library – CVE-2025-46337 (CVSS 10.0)

    Security

    Windows 11’s KB5052094 beta build lets you share files a lot easier via taskbar’s jump lists

    Operating Systems

    How to use Visual Intelligence on an iPhone 16 to identify unknown objects

    News & Updates

    Highlights

    Linux

    Secondo Kaspersky i sistemi GNU/Linux sono sempre più nel mirino del crimine informatico

    April 6, 2025

    I sistemi GNU/Linux, tradizionalmente considerati sistemi operativi sicuri e robusti, stanno diventando un bersaglio sempre…

    Why Your Business Needs a React Native Mobile App in 2025

    April 10, 2025

    YouTube celebrates 20 years with new features, cool tricks, and some truly mind-blowing stats

    April 23, 2025

    The Era of Web DDoS Tsunamis and Strategies for Defense

    May 6, 2024
    © DevStackTips 2025. All rights reserved.
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.