跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.31090 · v2

Poolwise: Evaluating Reward Models for Selection across Prompts

首次提交 2026-10-22 19:00
版本更新 2026-11-02 00:19
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:43
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Reward models are used to select training data, but common benchmarks compare responses only within the same prompt. Selecting data across prompts also depends on how scores compare between prompts. We introduce Poolwise, a protocol that selects a fixed fraction of a response pool by score, measures the selected set's quality using external labels, and reports within-prompt ranking separately. In matched experiments on two rating sets and two model sizes, training each prompt's mean score to match its average response rating improves selection over permuted or omitted mean targets in every seed at 30 percent retention. In grouped HelpSteer experiments, the model with the highest within-prompt accuracy selects a lower-rated set than the correct-mean model. Subtracting prompt means estimated from separate reference responses preserves local rankings but lowers selected helpfulness for six open reward models and two closed judges on HelpSteer. Poolwise provides a direct way to compare reward models and score transformations for data selection.

作者备注:38 pages, 9 figures, 47 tables. v2: reorganized around Poolwise, a protocol for evaluating reward models on pooled selection across prompts; adds matched training on HelpSteer's training split at two model sizes, two closed judges, a third reference generator and external panels (RoSE, IFEval); revised abstract, introduction and conclusion

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-11-02 00:19 · 最新观测版本

Poolwise: Evaluating Reward Models for Selection across Prompts

Reward models are used to select training data, but common benchmarks compare responses only within the same prompt. Selecting data across prompts also depends on how scores compare between prompts. We introduce Poolwise, a protocol that selects a fixed fraction of a response pool by score, measures the selected set's quality using external labels, and reports within-prompt ranking separately. In matched experiments on two rating sets and two model sizes, training each prompt's mean score to match its average response rating improves selection over permuted or omitted mean targets in every seed at 30 percent retention. In grouped HelpSteer experiments, the model with the highest within-prompt accuracy selects a lower-rated set than the correct-mean model. Subtracting prompt means estimated from separate reference responses preserves local rankings but lowers selected helpfulness for six open reward models and two closed judges on HelpSteer. Poolwise provides a direct way to compare reward models and score transformations for data selection.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗