update

docs/PPO.md

@@ -1,89 +1,69 @@
-Training large language models (LLMs) using **policy gradient methods** with techniques like **KL penalty gradients** and **Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO)** involves optimizing the model's policy to maximize rewards from a specific objective function. Here's a breakdown:
+To train large language models (LLMs) using policy gradient methods, particularly with techniques like **KL penalty gradients** and **Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO)**, we use mathematical formulations to guide updates to the model's parameters. Let me break down each method with the respective formulas and their explanations.
 
 ---
 
-### **1. Background: Policy Gradient in LLMs**
-Policy gradient methods train a model by directly optimizing the policy (probability distribution over actions) using gradients of a reward signal. In the context of LLMs:
+### 1. **Policy Gradient with KL Penalty**
+The objective with a KL penalty balances exploration (new predictions) and staying close to the current policy (to prevent drastic changes). The loss function is:
 
-- **Policy**: The model's output probabilities over tokens or sequences (e.g., \( \pi_\theta(a|s) \), where \( a \) is an action or token, and \( s \) is the input context).
-- **Objective**: Maximize expected rewards, such as alignment with user preferences, quality of generated text, or adherence to specific constraints.
-
-The optimization problem is:
 \[
-\mathcal{L}(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ R \right]
+L(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_{x \sim \text{data}, a \sim \pi_\theta} \left[ \log \pi_\theta(a|x) R(a, x) - \beta \text{KL}(\pi_\theta || \pi_{\text{old}}) \right]
 \]
-where \( R \) is the reward.
 
-Policy gradient methods adjust the parameters \( \theta \) in the direction of:
-\[
-\nabla_\theta \mathcal{L}(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ \nabla_\theta \log \pi_\theta(a|s) \cdot R \right]
-\]
+#### Explanation of terms:
+- \( \theta \): The parameters of the policy (e.g., weights of the model).
+- \( x \): Context or input (e.g., a sentence prefix).
+- \( a \): Action (e.g., the token chosen by the model).
+- \( \pi_\theta(a|x) \): The probability of taking action \( a \) under policy \( \pi_\theta \).
+- \( R(a, x) \): The reward for taking action \( a \) in context \( x \) (e.g., based on human feedback or task-specific metrics).
+- \( \beta \): A hyperparameter controlling the strength of the KL penalty.
+- \( \text{KL}(\pi_\theta || \pi_{\text{old}}) \): The Kullback-Leibler divergence between the current policy (\( \pi_\theta \)) and the old policy (\( \pi_{\text{old}} \)).
+
+#### Steps:
+1. The term \( \log \pi_\theta(a|x) R(a, x) \) encourages actions with higher rewards.
+2. The KL term \( \beta \text{KL}(\pi_\theta || \pi_{\text{old}}) \) penalizes large deviations from the previous policy.
 
 ---
 
-### **2. KL Penalty Gradients**
-When fine-tuning an LLM, the new policy \( \pi_\theta \) should not deviate too much from the original policy \( \pi_{\text{ref}} \). The **Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence** penalizes large deviations:
-\[
-\text{KL}(\pi_\theta || \pi_{\text{ref}}) = \sum_a \pi_\theta(a|s) \log \frac{\pi_\theta(a|s)}{\pi_{\text{ref}}(a|s)}
-\]
+### 2. **Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO)**
+
+PPO is designed to optimize policies while ensuring updates are constrained to prevent overly aggressive changes. The clipped objective is:
 
-The **KL penalty term** is added to the loss:
 \[
-\mathcal{L}(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ R \right] - \beta \cdot \mathbb{E}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ \text{KL}(\pi_\theta || \pi_{\text{ref}}) \right]
+L(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_{x, a} \left[ \min \left( r_\theta(a|x) \hat{A}(x, a), \text{clip}(r_\theta(a|x), 1 - \epsilon, 1 + \epsilon) \hat{A}(x, a) \right) \right]
 \]
 
-Here:
-- \( \beta \): Controls the strength of the penalty.
-- Intuition: Encourages the policy to remain close to the reference distribution unless there's a strong reward incentive to deviate.
+#### Explanation of terms:
+- \( r_\theta(a|x) = \frac{\pi_\theta(a|x)}{\pi_{\text{old}}(a|x)} \): The ratio of probabilities under the new and old policies.
+- \( \hat{A}(x, a) \): The advantage function estimating how much better action \( a \) is compared to the average action at \( x \).
+- \( \epsilon \): A small hyperparameter controlling the clipping range.
+- \( \text{clip}(r_\theta(a|x), 1 - \epsilon, 1 + \epsilon) \): Ensures that the probability ratio remains within a specified range, preventing overly large updates.
 
-The gradient becomes:
-\[
-\nabla_\theta \mathcal{L}(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ \nabla_\theta \log \pi_\theta(a|s) \cdot (R - \beta \cdot \text{KL}(\pi_\theta || \pi_{\text{ref}})) \right]
-\]
+#### Steps:
+1. \( r_\theta(a|x) \hat{A}(x, a) \): Encourages actions that have a high advantage.
+2. The clipping \( \text{clip}(r_\theta(a|x), 1 - \epsilon, 1 + \epsilon) \) ensures the update to the policy stays within a safe region to avoid destabilization.
+3. The objective is the minimum of the unclipped and clipped terms, which avoids the risk of overly optimistic updates.
 
 ---
 
-### **3. Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO)**
-**PPO** is a popular and robust policy gradient algorithm. It improves upon basic policy gradient methods by ensuring updates are **stable** and **limited**.
+### 3. **KL Penalty Gradient in PPO**
+
+Some variations of PPO incorporate an explicit KL penalty instead of clipping. The objective in such cases is:
 
-Key innovations:
-- **Clipped Surrogate Objective**: PPO modifies the objective to prevent large updates to the policy:
-\[
-\mathcal{L}(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ \min(r_t \cdot A, \text{clip}(r_t, 1-\epsilon, 1+\epsilon) \cdot A) \right]
-\]
-where:
-  - \( r_t = \frac{\pi_\theta(a|s)}{\pi_{\text{old}}(a|s)} \): Ratio of new to old policy probabilities.
-  - \( A \): Advantage estimate (how much better an action is compared to the baseline).
-  - \( \epsilon \): Clip parameter (e.g., 0.2).
-
-- **KL Penalty or Constraint**: Some versions of PPO explicitly incorporate a KL divergence term to control deviation:
 \[
-\mathcal{L}(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ R \right] - \beta \cdot \text{KL}(\pi_\theta || \pi_{\text{ref}})
+L(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_{x, a} \left[ r_\theta(a|x) \hat{A}(x, a) - \beta \text{KL}(\pi_\theta || \pi_{\text{old}}) \right]
 \]
 
-**Benefits**:
-- Ensures policy updates stay within a "trust region," avoiding dramatic changes.
-- Balances exploration of new policies and staying close to the reference policy.
-
----
+#### Explanation:
+This combines the clipping-free PPO update with the KL penalty term to ensure controlled policy updates.
 
-### **4. Putting It All Together**
-When training LLMs with PPO and KL penalty gradients:
-1. **Initialize** with a reference model \( \pi_{\text{ref}} \) (e.g., a pre-trained LLM).
-2. **Collect data** using the current policy \( \pi_\theta \) by sampling outputs and computing rewards (e.g., via human feedback or a reward model).
-3. **Compute gradients** using:
-   - Reward signal \( R \).
-   - KL divergence penalty to enforce similarity to \( \pi_{\text{ref}} \).
-   - Clipped objective to stabilize updates.
-4. **Update policy** iteratively until convergence.
+- The **advantage term** encourages exploration based on observed rewards.
+- The **KL term** penalizes divergence from the previous policy, similar to the earlier KL penalty method.
 
 ---
 
-### **5. Practical Considerations**
-- **Reward Design**: Rewards must reflect the desired behavior (e.g., correctness, coherence, user preference).
-- **Hyperparameters**:
-  - \( \beta \): KL penalty weight.
-  - \( \epsilon \): PPO clip threshold.
-- **Efficiency**: Large-scale LLM training requires distributed optimization and batching strategies.
+### Summary of Differences:
+- **KL Penalty**: Explicitly penalizes divergence from the previous policy with a hyperparameter \( \beta \).
+- **PPO**: Uses clipping to constrain updates instead of an explicit KL penalty. It ensures stability while allowing flexibility.
+- **KL in PPO**: A hybrid approach that combines advantage-driven updates with a KL penalty for more explicit control.
 
-This approach has been successfully used in reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) for fine-tuning LLMs like OpenAI's GPT models.
+Each approach has trade-offs and can be tuned based on the model size, task complexity, and stability requirements. Let me know if you want a deeper dive into any of these!