Hybrid Preferences: Learning to Route Instances for Human vs. AI Feedback

While we respectfully disagree with some characterizations of our work, particularly regarding its novelty and technical depth, we welcome the opportunity to address each concern and clarify several apparent misunderstandings. We believe that what the reviewer perceives as 'merely empirical engineering optimization' represents a contribution to making RLHF, especially preference annotation, more efficient as grounded by data quality. Below, we systematically address each point raised, providing additional context and evidence: 1. We respectfully disagree with the characterization of our work as "merely empirical engineering optimization." While the approach may appear intuitive, its simplicity is a feature, not a limitation. Our framework represents a systematic attempt to optimize preference annotation mixing, moving beyond heuristic approaches to provide a principled method for reducing annotation costs while improving model performance. Unlike uncertainty-based methods, our approach directly optimizes for performance outcomes. 2. The reviewer's concern about feature simplicity overlooks a key strength of our work: the features, while basic, demonstrate remarkable generalization ability across different datasets and tasks. As shown in our results, this "simple" approach achieves significant performance improvements across preference datasets and tasks. The feature space's effectiveness despite its simplicity suggests we've captured fundamental characteristics of preference data that can indeed serve as a foundation for future work. 3. **We’d like to ask Reviewer qKe8 to elaborate why they think relying on RewardBench is dubious.** The reliability of PPM results is validated through multiple empirical evaluations. The PPM's predictions strongly correlate with actual performance not just on RewardBench, but across multiple downstream tasks as demonstrated in our extensive evaluations. We demonstrate this through both reward model performance and best-of-N sampling on downstream tasks (Table 4). 4. The reviewer raises an interesting point about sample coverage, which actually highlights the sample efficiency of our PPM model. While 2^7K represents the theoretical space of possibilities, **our experimental results demonstrate that sampling 200-500 candidates is sufficient to train a PPM that can lead to robust and consistent improvements in model performance.** The effectiveness of this sampling strategy is evidenced by the significant performance gains shown in Tables 3 and 4, where our method consistently outperforms baselines across multiple datasets and evaluation metrics. This suggests that while the theoretical space is vast, a carefully selected subset of candidates is sufficient to identify high-performing preference mixes. 5. We are currently running additional experiments with different model architectures and sizes to validate our framework's generalizability beyond Tulu 2. We will include these new experimental results in the final version of the paper. 6. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our evaluation strategy. While BBH and AlpacaEval appear in both RewardBench and Section 4.3, they serve distinct purposes in our experiments. In Section 4.3, these benchmarks are used specifically for zero-shot evaluation, providing a different perspective from their role in reward modeling. Moreover, our evaluation encompasses completely independent datasets such as Helpsteer2 and ChatArena, which help demonstrate the broader applicability of our approach. These diverse evaluation settings collectively provide strong evidence for our method's generalization capabilities. 7. We disagree that expanding the PPM would necessarily increase RLHF complexity. The PPM operates independently of the RM-PPO pipeline and **only needs to be trained once.** The resulting benefits in annotation efficiency and model performance outweigh the initial investment, making it both elegant (in its modularity) and cost-effective.

We sincerely thank Reviewer Xt8Y for their detailed analysis of our work. We particularly value their recognition of our paper's clear presentation and the broader contribution of our preference dataset, MultiPref, to the research community. Their feedback highlights important areas where we can provide additional depth and clarity. ## On incorporating direct metrics for evaluating human feedback We appreciate the question about evaluation metrics. While our main results focus on reward model performance, we conducted additional evaluations using Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) as detailed in Appendix Section 11. The DPO experiments revealed that while our hybrid annotations still outperformed both random sampling and single-source annotations (100% human or synthetic), the performance differences were less pronounced. We attribute this to DPO's training dynamics, specifically the conservative learning rate (LR=5e-7) and KL regularization that limit the policy's deviation from the base SFT weights. To ensure robust evaluation, our RM evaluation consists of RewardBench as one benchmark, and best-of-N sampling across multiple downstream tasks (GSM8k, BBH, IFEval, Codex, AlpacaEval) as shown in Table 4. The best-of-N sampling results are particularly meaningful as they evaluate actual model generations, providing direct evidence of improved performance from our hybrid annotation mix. Combined with RewardBench evaluations, this gives us a reliable assessment of how reward models will perform in practice when training policy models. ## On the versatility of the features / tags We thank the reviewer for raising this important point about feature versatility. We want to highlight a key aspect of our experiments that demonstrates the robustness of our feature representation: our PPM demonstrates strong generalization capabilities across different datasets without requiring dataset-specific feature engineering. Specifically, we trained the PPM using features extracted from MultiPref candidates, and then directly applied **this same PPM** to Helpsteer2, AlpacaFarm, and ChatArena without any modification. This choice of evaluation datasets also differ, highlighting the diversity of our evaluation. For example, ChatArena preferences were collected from the public, whereas Helpsteer2 and AlpacaFarm recruited annotators (with different competencies, i.e., expert annotators vs. normal crowdworkers) to provide preferences. The strong performance shown in Tables 3 and 4 validates that our feature representation captures fundamental characteristics that transfer well across datasets. This cross-dataset generalization is particularly noteworthy because it suggests that our approach avoids the need for task-specific feature design. Rather than requiring manual feature engineering for each new dataset, our current feature representation appears to capture generalizable properties of preference data. We hope this finding addresses Reviewer Xt8Y’s valid concern about potential complexity in practical applications: the features we developed are sufficiently versatile to work 'out of the box' across multiple datasets. ## On training and evaluation configuration of the PPM We provide the following in the Appendix: - Finegrained results for each RewardBench category/subdivision in Section A.10 - Evaluation set-up for best-of-N Section A.12 and training configuration in Section A.8. ## In which cases is AI feedback better? We thank the reviewer for their insightful question about the specific scenarios where AI feedback provides advantages. While our framework doesn't explicitly optimize for finding instances where LM annotations will be better, it does provide some interesting insights about annotation routing patterns on the datasets we tested. For example in Appendix Section A.7, we analyze performance gains associated with routing specific feature types to human annotators. Features shown in pink (indicating lower performance gain from human annotation) tend to be routed to LMs by our framework. Finally, we performed additional analyses on Helpsteer2-Preferences as a case study. We ran the same PPM and examined preference instances that were routed to an LM. We find that certain domains of expertise such as Computer Science or Business tend to be routed to the LM annotator. Upon closer inspection, we also find defining qualities that make an LM annotator more desirable, such as instructions that require roleplay (“Act as a marketing manager in a tech startup…”), or complex objective tasks. We will include these analyses in the paper.

We sincerely thank reviewer PxBW for their careful assessment of our work. We appreciate their recognition of the fundamental importance of our research problem: optimizing reward alignment with humans while minimizing costs and improving data quality - and the broader implications of our findings. Their review highlights a key insight from our work: that optimal performance can actually be achieved with selective rather than exhaustive human annotation. The reviewer also appreciates how our experimental results span multiple datasets representing diverse LLM capabilities, which helps validate the robustness and generalizability of our approach. We now address some of the relevant points of feedback they raised: ## Is our goal still “alignment”:? Our findings suggest a more nuanced view of alignment: rather than assuming more human feedback always leads to better alignment, we find that a carefully balanced mix of human and synthetic annotations can better capture human preferences. We believe that this doesn't contradict the alignment goal. Instead, our findings reveal that **human preferences might be better approximated through a combination of direct human feedback and synthetic annotations that effectively generalize these preferences.** In addition, we frame LM annotations as synthetic preferences primarily because these were distilled from models that were originally trained on human preferences. In addition, obtaining preferences from a combination of humans and LMs can be thought of as a way of reducing variance expected from a fully human annotation setup. The performance gap between purely synthetic and purely human annotations likely exists because synthetic annotations can systematically capture certain patterns while lacking the nuanced judgment humans provide in complex cases. Our routing framework, and consequently the best hybrid mix leverages the strengths of both human and LM annotations: human annotations for nuanced, complex decisions, and synthetic annotations for more straightforward cases where human preferences can be reliably predicted. We agree this deserves more thorough treatment in our discussion section which we’ll update in our paper. ## On the routing framework The goal for creating candidates is to sufficiently create enough diversity in our feature space so that the performance prediction model can learn to predict expected RM performance. When selecting the optimal mix, the PPM plays a crucial role in preventing poor sample selection: it provides performance predictions that guide us in choosing a mix that is not suboptimal. Even in a greedy approach, each selection is informed by the PPM's assessment of how that sample would contribute to the overall reward model performance. ## Comparisons with random sampling Figure 4 highlights this suggestion, where **we compared our routing framework on a mix with 25%, 50%, and 75% random human annotations (and the rest from the LM annotator).** Our findings suggest that **our routing framework still performs better than the randomly-sampled mix.** We appreciate this comment and we will include these results in Tables 3 and 4 as well.

We would like to thank Reviewer u41y for their thoughtful feedback. We are particularly encouraged by their recognition of the innovation in our routing framework and performance prediction model, and the comprehensive experiments we conducted to back-up our claims and validate our framework’s effectiveness. We believe that there are feasible changes that will address their concerns which we outline below ## More information on the routing strategy Our routing strategy is to select the combination that yields the best predicted model performance, whereas random selection does not optimize for model performance. Our routing strategy works in conjunction with the PPM to make informed decisions about preference mix sampling. Rather than purely random sampling, we assign an expected RM performance rating to each sampled set, and we choose the subset that yields the highest predicted performance. This "guided" approach helps avoid suboptimal annotation combinations that might arise from completely random sampling. We empirically validated this advantage in Figure 4, which demonstrates that **our routing strategy consistently outperforms preference mixes with randomly sampled annotations at various ratios (75%, 50%, and 25%).** These results suggest that having an informed way to predict and select high-performing preference mixes leads to better reward model performance compared to random selection. **The key takeaway here is that not all preference annotation combinations are equally valuable - our routing framework helps identify and prioritize the more promising combinations**, whereas random sampling provides no such guidance about dataset quality. ## On generalizability to other evaluation tasks We actually did evaluate the PPM's performance across multiple downstream tasks beyond RewardBench. As shown in Table 4, we assessed the optimal preference mix identified by our routing framework on several key benchmarks including GSM8k, BBH, IFEval, and AlpacaEval using Best-of-N evaluation. The results demonstrated that our routing framework's preference mix consistently outperformed both 100% human and 100% synthetic annotation baselines across these diverse tasks. ## On choosing one optimal candidate on 500 simulated datasets We appreciate this thoughtful observation. You raise an excellent point about the PPM's efficiency - indeed, the PPM's prediction time is significantly faster than conducting actual RLHF evaluations, which theoretically allows us to explore a much larger candidate space. The choice of 500 candidates for evaluation was somewhat arbitrary, primarily serving as a proof-of-concept to demonstrate that **we can effectively identify optimal samples even from hundreds of candidates.** In future work, we could certainly explore scaling to thousands of candidates, which might yield even better results. The training on 200 candidates provided sufficient data for the PPM to learn meaningful patterns, while evaluation on 500 candidates helped validate the model's generalization capabilities across a broader set of routing strategies.