Reward Modeling for Mitigating Toxicity in Transformer-based Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transformer-based language models are able to generate fluent text and be efficiently adapted across various natural language generation tasks. However, language models that are pretrained on large unlabeled web text corpora have been shown to suffer from degenerating toxic content and social bias behaviors, consequently hindering their safe deployment. Various detoxification methods were proposed to mitigate the language model's toxicity; however, these methods struggled to detoxify language models when conditioned on prompts that contain specific social identities related to gender, race, or religion. In this study, we propose Reinforce-Detoxify; A reinforcement learning-based method for mitigating toxicity in language models. We address the challenge of safety in language models and propose a new reward model that is able to detect toxic content and mitigate unintended bias towards social identities in toxicity prediction. The experiments demonstrate that the Reinforce-Detoxify method for language model detoxification outperforms existing detoxification approaches in automatic evaluation metrics, indicating the ability of our approach in language model detoxification and less prone to unintended bias toward social identities in generated content.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".