Reward Learning from Multiple Feedback Types
Reinforcement Learning;RLHF;Machine Learning;Multi-Type Feedback
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1. Figure 3 obscures the text.   
2. Some figures are not analyzed, and there are more important results in the appendix, requiring a restructuring of the paper.        
3. Mean and standard deviation are not provided.             
4. Why is the correlation of some reward functions so low?         
5.Is the method for training reward models online? (i.e., continuously updated online with new samples)
1.Studying different types of human feedback is extremely important and can promote research development in the RLHF community.  
2.Provides methods for generating various types of synthetic feedback for future RLHF research.         
3.For the first time, it proposes training with multiple feedback sources while considering human noise.        
4.The various analyses of reward models in the main paper and the appendix are comprehensive.
This paper thoroughly investigates learning from different types of human feedback, including defining various types of human feedback, detailing how to collect synthetic feedback for research purposes, and training reward models based on synthetic feedback. It also analyzes the performance of joint training with multiple feedback types and examines the effectiveness of different feedback types.
1.The workload of this paper is substantial, covering many key points, which results in relatively preliminary research on each type of feedback. The characteristics of different feedback types are not well demonstrated. Can you describe several key feedback types or explain which feedback types are more suitable for specific scenarios?      
2.The first half of the paper is well-written, but the experimental organization in the latter half is chaotic, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions.

Overall, I believe this paper is highly valuable, but the current version appears somewhat hasty.
Yes
No concerns.
No ethics review needed.
1) How diverse is the distribution of trajectories in line 197? Can you provide quantification of the exploration?

2) Is there any analysis for Figure 2, specifically why demonstrative and corrective feedback appear significantly different from other methods?

3) How can you ensure it is fair to compare different feedback types given that noise is generated separately for each type?

4) What are the hardware requirements and other support needed, along with the expected training time and latency based on these specifications?

5) Are there any results available for environments beyond Mujoco?
With the development of RLHF, there has been an exponential growth of research, especially in interdisciplinary applications, such as large language models (LLMs). I appreciate that it is important to have a standard library of feedback types commonly found in established RL frameworks. This is undoubtedly helpful for both new and experienced researchers in this rapidly evolving field. The choice of RL methods (e.g., PPO) and environments used in the paper are standard and widely accepted in the literature.

Furthermore, by encompassing multiple feedback types, this library has the potential to standardize RLHF research, making studies more comparable and reproducible across the field. Unlike prior work that often focuses on single feedback types or limited noise modeling, this toolkit provides a broader, more robust framework, which could foster progress in handling realistic feedback conditions in reinforcement learning.
The paper develops a lightweight software library for generating six feedback types—rating, comparative, demonstration, corrective, descriptive, and descriptive preference—in the field of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). The library is compatible with established RL frameworks, including Gymnasium, Stable Baselines, and Imitation.

The paper introduces noise into the synthetic feedback. Experimental results are presented on basic Gym Mujoco locomotion tasks. In these experiments, the authors compare the learned reward functions and the agent’s performance across different feedback types, both with and without noise. Additionally, the authors present a joint reward feedback method, i.e., an ensemble of rewards, and compare it to single feedback type baselines. This approach performs well in the HalfCheetah-v5 environment but is less effective in Walker2d-v5.
1) Limited Analysis of Feedback Types and Noise Effects: The paper provides only a shallow analysis of the results across different feedback types and the impact of adding noise. The authors introduce Gaussian noise as a way to simulate realistic inconsistencies in human feedback, which is a valid approach. However, they assume that the added noise will uniformly challenge the agent’s learning process, yet they provide limited empirical support to demonstrate the nuanced effects of this noise. In reinforcement learning, robustness to noise is complex and context-dependent; simply adding noise doesn’t necessarily simulate real-world variability comprehensively. This is particularly relevant in cases where the agent encounters unfamiliar scenarios, as it may lack the generalization needed to adapt successfully, which is not addressed here. It would be beneficial if the authors quantified the noise across feedback types and analyzed how this type-specific noise impacts learning stability and performance. Without such quantification, comparing the robustness of different feedback types remains somewhat speculative and may not provide fair insights. As highlighted by Casper et al. (2023), inconsistencies in human feedback are a fundamental limitation in reinforcement learning from human feedback, underscoring the need for a systematic approach to evaluating robustness in such noisy environments.

Reference: Casper, Stephen, et al. "Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback." Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023.

2) Reward Ensemble Approach is Underdeveloped: The paper attempts to improve reward learning through a reward ensemble (combining different feedback types), which is an intriguing direction. However, the ensemble approach lacks depth and does not yield substantial improvements. The authors themselves acknowledge that rewards from different feedback types cannot be averaged simply, and yet, the methods presented for combining them are fairly straightforward. Given the challenging nature of ensemble reward learning, the results are not strong enough to warrant this as a core contribution. As such, this component appears more exploratory than foundational, and it could benefit from either more sophisticated ensemble techniques or a more extensive evaluation to validate its potential utility.

3) Insufficient Details as a Software Library: As a contribution to reinforcement learning tools, the paper lacks critical details expected from a software library description. While the library supports diverse RL environments beyond the basic Gym Mojoco tasks, only these tasks are presented in the main text. Further, there is little mention of essential details such as hardware requirements, training time, or memory usage, which are crucial for reproducibility and practical use by researchers. Although some hyper-parameter details are provided in the appendix, this is insufficient for a full understanding of the library’s operational requirements and expected performance.

4) Typos and Formatting Issues

- Figure 4b title should read “RL Episode Returns.”

- Incomplete sentences in the paragraph near line 380.

- Hidden text in line 356.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
* In Figure 5, the results are described as averaged over "3 feedback datasets", what are the sources of the different feedback datasets? Are these different random seeds? Earlier it was stated that 5 random seeds were used.
* How well do the feedback ensemble rewards correlate with the ground truth reward function?
* In Section 4.2 you talk about sampling against random behavior being stronger than agains sub-optimal rollouts for demonstrative feedback. This is an interested conclusion and I would have expected the opposite. Why do you think this is the case?
- The paper addresses an important problem, which is providing a toolkit/benchmark for people to use to research learning from different types of feedback and how to combine them. The approach is similar to what has already been used to learn from binary preference labels alone, which makes it an easy toolkit for people to pick up and understand how it works. 
- The experiments and results demonstrate that accounting for multiple source of feedback is neither straightforward nor trivial, and work is needed to understand the strengths and benefits of each.
-The proposed toolkit does not rely on actual humans in the loop making it something many people can use easily for initial proofs of concepts. 
- The toolkit provides mechanisms to have different sources of noise, which is crucial as we know human feedback is noisy. The code is note yet provided, but from the description in the paper, it seems like running experiments with different amounts of noise should be fairly straight forward.
The paper presents a benchmark or toolkit to use to simulate multiple types of feedback in the context of learning preferences from human feedback as well as analyzes one approach to combining multiple sources of feedback (ensemble of rewards). The different sources of feedback include ratings (scalar scores per trajectory), binary preference labels, demonstrations, corrections, descriptions of high value state-action pairs, and descriptions of high value features. The paper describes in detail how each sources of feedback is simulated using an environment's ground truth reward as the human proxy. The bulk of experiments focus on comparing the reward models learned from the different sources of feedback by looking at correlation between learned reward functions and downstream policy performance according to the ground truth reward. Policy performance and reward model accuracy are evaluated in the face of feedback noise, with how noise is applied varying between the different sources of feedback. For evaluating how to combine the multiple sources of feedback, the authors present two approaches to combining an ensemble of reward models, where different mini reward model ensembles are trained from different sources of feedback. The primary take away is that there is no one best source of feedback across tasks.
**High-level overview:**

There are two main weaknesses of this paper discussed at a high level here, but more details below. The work is valuable and necessary, but the needed level of rigor isn't there yet.
     (1) the toolkit it not validated against any studies involving humans, therefore it is impossible to know if the conclusions drawn in the paper reflect characteristics of the feedback or of the implementation
     (2) the text in the paper, especially in the second half describing experiments and results, contradicts itself and presented results making it difficult to draw conclusions and have take aways or learnings.

**The details:**
* The way the paper is written suggests that both the multi-feedback toolkit and the method for combing the multiple sources of feedback are both equal contributions. I would push back that the main contribution is the toolkit and the proposed method is rather trivial with no true baselines to show its benefit or contribution. It would have been better to limit the feedback combination methods as a tool for proof of concept showing how the toolkit can be used. 
* The authors draw conclusions about the usefulness of different types of feedback (e.g. Figure 2 reward model correlation and demonstrative and corrective having the worst correlation with the ground truth reward). However, in the absence of a study to validate the toolkit against human feedback makes it impossible to validate if this is a function of the feedback, or the choices they have made in how the feedback is implemented.
* Only one environment is evaluated therefore it is not possible to assess how general the proposed toolkit and feedback simulation method are. At least one other should be included. MetaWorld is popular for the preference learning and would be a natural fit as it is included in [BPref] (https://github.com/rll-research/BPref).
* There are multiple places in the paper where the authors seem to contradict either themselves or the presented results:
     * at the start of Section 4.4, the first sentence sounds like there was not online reward model adaptation, but then the last two sentences to that first paragraph make it sound like there was: "...we utilize simple pre-trained reward models instead of continuously adapting the models..." versus "The reward model is continuously updated..."
     * the text in the main body does not mentioned that the reward model correlations for other tasks beyond half cheetah have are weaker with different patterns among the feedback types. The full nuance of the results are not represented, and instead strong language and conclusions are drawn about a single task.
     * the statement on lines 325 - 326 "...all feedback types individually can learn reward functions that closely match the ground-truth reward..." is not true for all feedback types according to the Figure 2 and those in the appendix. In Figure 2, demonstrative and corrective have a correlation of 0.61 and 0.5, which is a medium match. In Figure 25, these feedback types have correlations as low as a 0.18.
     * on lines 410 - 411, it is stated that "...no feedback type is obviously more or less robust to noise." however, then looking at Figure 4(b) and Figure 5(b), the performance gap between learning curves across different amounts of noise varies across feedback types, which suggests that some are more sensitive that. others. To back up the claim, "obviously" needs to be quantified to make it clear the threshold for what qualifies as "more or less robust".
     * section 5 opens by stating that different feedback types struggle in different scenarios, but all of the discussion in Section 4 talks about how there is no clear difference between the different sources of feedback.
* The first half of the paper motivating and describing the multiple feedback toolkit is very well written, methodical, and easy to follow. However, there is a switch part way through the paper when it transitions to talking about experiments with the toolkit. Here the presentation and writing changes drastically with things like: 
     * Figure 3 overlapping the text of the main body
     * an incomplete sentence (page 8 line 380)
     * what seems to be misconnected analysis and results figures (e.g. figures 4 and 5 - the text seems to talk about figure 4, but references figure 5 and figure 4 is not mentioned in the paper as far as I can tell)
     * mislabelled and titled figures where the captions disagree with the figure axis/title (e.g. Figure 2 - HalfCheetah-v5 versus Swimmer-v5; Figure 5 - swimmer v5 and walker2d-v5 versus half cheetah-v5; and figure 4 - "reward model validation curves", but it looks like policy returns)
     * Figure 4 left plot, the y-axis scale are on different scales, making it tricky to compare across feedback sources.
     * using both a : and - on page 8 line 429
     * it is stated that results are over 5 random seeds, but there are no standard deviation results
     * there are numerous places with typos (e.g. "as the be considered" line 256) that need to be addressed.
     * not all lines in Figure 3 are labelled nor described.
Yes
None
No ethics review needed.
Does the method of reward modelling proposed work to learn both an RL policy and a reward model *without pre-training the reward model*?

When utilising demonstrative and preference feedback, a common method is training first on the demonstrations, e.g. using MaxEnt or SFT / Behavioural cloning, and then fine-tuning on the preferences with RLHF.
It would be interesting to see a comparison to this baseline method.

How do reward function correlations vary across environments and across trajectories?

It would be good to run multiple seeds and plot mean and standard error/deviation in the figures.
Research is well motivated.

Existing work is nicely leveraged and inter-twinned to form basis of paper without re-inventing the wheel.

Paper is reasonably well written, with ideas are clearly communicated.

The proposed method to generate synthetic feedback seems good.

The proposed method to learn from multiple feedback types, namely training separate reward models and combining their scores, is clean, simple, and easy to understand.

The noise model used seems reasonable.

Paper considers alternative formulations of human feedback, namely regret-based.

Exploring the reward model correlations is good analysis.

For the most part, the paper tests on many environments with many noise levels, giving strong evidence for some of their claims.
This paper explores reward learning utilising multiple different types of feedback, covering evaluative, instructional, and descriptive forms.

They propose a method on how to generate these forms of feedback synthetically, how to learn from these feedback methods in isolation, and also how to combine these reward signals to learn from many types of feedback simultaneously.

Additionally, they investigate the different properties of these feedback methods such as their correlation, and ability to provide a reward signal for learning an RL policy.
Learning a reward model for each feedback type presents some limitations not considered by the authors.
* If these reward models are large or computationally expensive (e.g. in an foundation model finetuning setting where each one may be foundation model sized), then having one for every feedback type might not be very scalable or practical.
* The resulting reward signal cannot incorporate information only deducible from considering multiple feedback types at once.
For example, there may be some patterns or generalisations only apparent when considering all feedback.
* If there's only small amounts of one type of feedback, its corresponding reward model might be very inaccurate, and if the uncertainty for the uncertainty-weighting is not well calibrated, it could lead to that reward model making the overall reward signal worse.

The paper only considers synthetically generated feedback and does not evaluate / verify with real human feedback.

The paper focuses on continuous control tasks, and does not test on any discrete or contextual bandit environments.
This is important to test as this more closely corresponds to the LLM fine-tuning setting, a key application of RLHF and related methods.

Interpreting the demonstrations as being preferred only to random trajectories seriously limits the information extracted from them compared to standard demonstration learning approaches like MaxEnt.
Despite the authors claims suggesting this was "stronger than sampling against other sub-optimal rollouts", the amount of interesting state space explored by random policies decreases exponentially as the environment gets larger and more complicated.
For example, in the language modelling setting, interpreting your demonstrated responses as better than random tokens would probably not improve your pre-trained model compared to supervised fine-tuning.

The feedback methods, except one, all use the same fixed segment length.
This may be sub-optimal if different feedback methods work better with different sized segments.

The reward model correlation analysis is only done on one environment and are averaged over the whole trajectory.
It's not clear how consistent these correlations are across different environments, and it may be interesting to see how these correlations change over the course of a typical trajectory (E.g. maybe some are well correlated to begin with, and then become de-correlated).

Graphs have no error bars, and it's not clear how many random seeds have been averaged over in the RL experiments.
If there are not multiple random seeds, then very little of the results presented can be assumed to be statistically significant.

The reward models are pre-trained before being used to train a policy.
This is very atypical for RLHF and limits the conclusions that can be drawn from the results.

In figure 3, not showing the score for learning from the ground truth reward as a function of environment time steps limits comparisons between learning from the feedback modes vs the ground truth itself.

It's not clear how amounts of each type of feedback are controlled to be comparable.
It seems the amount of each type available is very dependent and sensitive to parameters of the synthetic generation process.

For uncertainty-weighted ensembles, the uncertainty of an ensemble that has been trained on feedback that only constrains reward differences (e.g. comparative) is not well-calibrated.

I do not believe some of the claims in the discussion and conclusion are well-supported.
* On point (2), line 495/496, combining rewards is only tested on two environments and only performs well in one of them.
* Line 523/524, the comparison of these characteristics has been very limited.
* Line 526 to 528, learning from multiple feedback types being "very effective" is not supported by the evidence presented in figure 6.

## Errata:
* Figure 2 caption and subcaptions disagree on what environment the results are from (Swimmer-v5 vs HalfCheetah(-v5)).
* Figure 3 partially covers some text
* The paragraph at the start of section 4.4 conflicts with itself: "instead of continuously adapting ... is continuously updated"
* Line 380, sentence abruptly ends and is unfinished
* The axes and legends for figures 2,3,4, and 5 (especially 3), are too small to clearly read, especially on a printed copy of the paper.
* The lighter shaded lines in figures 4, 5, and 6 are hard to see.
* There is no reference to figure 4 in the main text of the paper, nor analysis of what it shows.
* Line 454, "As stated before, each individual reward model ... is an ensemble in itself". This does not appear to have been stated before.
* Line 467, the text refers to the "Hopper-v5" environment, but the figure under discussion, 6, only contains the HalfCheetahv5 and Walker2d-v5 environments.
We present a simulation framework and reward model implementations for diverse feedback of multiple types, and show their effectiveness
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024reward,
title={Reward Learning from Multiple Feedback Types},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=9Ieq8jQNAl},
note={under review}
}
Learning rewards from preference feedback has become an important tool in the alignment of agentic models. Preference-based feedback, often implemented as a binary comparison between multiple completions, is an established method to acquire large-scale human feedback. However, human feedback in other contexts is often much more diverse. Such diverse feedback can better support the goals of a human annotator, and the simultaneous use of multiple sources might be mutually informative for the learning process or carry type-dependent biases for the reward learning process.
Despite these potential benefits, learning from different feedback types has yet to be explored extensively.
In this paper, we bridge this gap by enabling experimentation and evaluating multi-type feedback in a wide set of environments. We present a process to generate high-quality simulated feedback of six different types. Then, we implement reward models and downstream RL training for all six feedback types.
Based on the simulated feedback, we investigate the use of types of feedback across five RL environments and compare them to pure preference-based baselines. We show empirically that diverse types of feedback can be utilized simultaneously and lead to improved reward modeling performance. This work is the first strong indicator of the potential of true multi-type feedback for RLHF.
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
Reinforcement Learning RLHF Machine Learning Multi-Type Feedback
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/8e09ef29717eb2ba8360b98f5eabf087a43ddfa9.pdf
reinforcement learning
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
/attachment/40bf0d3ee3169cd0c70bd0e704b44fa84cfca93c.zip
Reward Learning from Multiple Feedback Types
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission