Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is a recent technique to improve the quality of the text generated by a language model, making it closer to what humans would generate.A core ingredient in RLHF’s success in aligning and improving large language models (LLMs) is its reward model, trained using human feedback on model outputs. In machine translation (MT), where metrics trained from human annotations can readily be used as reward models, recent methods using minimum Bayes risk decoding and reranking have succeeded in improving the final quality of translation.In this study, we comprehensively explore and compare techniques for integrating quality metrics as reward models into the MT pipeline. This includes using the reward model for data filtering, during the training phase through RL, and at inference time by employing reranking techniques, and we assess the effects of combining these in a unified approach.Our experimental results, conducted across multiple translation tasks, underscore the crucial role of effective data filtering, based on estimated quality, in harnessing the full potential of RL in enhancing MT quality.Furthermore, our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of combining RL training with reranking techniques, showcasing substantial improvements in translation quality.

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming a one-fits-many solution, but they sometimes hallucinate or produce unreliable output. In this paper, we investigate how hypothesis ensembling can improve the quality of the generated text for the specific problem of LLM-based machine translation. We experiment with several techniques for ensembling hypotheses produced by LLMs such as ChatGPT, LLaMA, and Alpaca. We provide a comprehensive study along multiple dimensions, including the method to generate hypotheses (multiple prompts, temperature-based sampling, and beam search) and the strategy to produce the final translation (instruction-based, quality-based reranking, and minimum Bayes risk (MBR) decoding). Our results show that MBR decoding is a very effective method, that translation quality can be improved using a small number of samples, and that instruction tuning has a strong impact on the relation between the diversity of the hypotheses and the sampling temperature.

Natural language generation has witnessed significant advancements due to the training of large language models on vast internet-scale datasets. Despite these advancements, there exists a critical challenge: These models can inadvertently generate content that is toxic, inaccurate, and unhelpful, and existing automatic evaluation metrics often fall short of identifying these shortcomings. As models become more capable, human feedback is an invaluable signal for evaluating and improving models. This survey aims to provide an overview of recent research that has leveraged human feedback to improve natural language generation. First, we introduce a taxonomy distilled from existing research to categorize and organize the varied forms of feedback. Next, we discuss how feedback can be described by its format and objective, and cover the two approaches proposed to use feedback (either for training or decoding): directly using feedback or training feedback models. We also discuss existing datasets for human-feedback data collection, and concerns surrounding feedback collection. Finally, we provide an overview of the nascent field of AI feedback, which uses large language models to make judgments based on a set of principles and minimize the need for human intervention. We also release a website of this survey at feedback-gap-survey.info.

Despite the progress in machine translation quality estimation and evaluation in the last years, decoding in neural machine translation (NMT) is mostly oblivious to this and centers around finding the most probable translation according to the model (MAP decoding), approximated with beam search. In this paper, we bring together these two lines of research and propose quality-aware decoding for NMT, by leveraging recent breakthroughs in reference-free and reference-based MT evaluation through various inference methods like N-best reranking and minimum Bayes risk decoding. We perform an extensive comparison of various possible candidate generation and ranking methods across four datasets and two model classes and find that quality-aware decoding consistently outperforms MAP-based decoding according both to state-of-the-art automatic metrics (COMET and BLEURT) and to human assessments.