用排序代替生成,提升解释质量评估效果
Explanation Quality Assessment as Ranking with Listwise Rewards

- 将解释质量评估转为多候选排序任务,避免逐词生成偏差
- 排序损失在所有领域均优于回归,且小模型可媲美大模型
- 适合需要稳定训练的解释优化场景,尤其数据质量高时
我们将解释质量评估重新定义为排序问题,而非生成问题。不通过逐词优化生成单一最优解释,而是训练奖励模型对多个候选解释进行相对质量判别。具体地,我们构建每实例具有分级质量的候选集,采用列表式与成对式排序模型(ListNet、LambdaRank、RankNet)以保留序数结构,并避免点式回归或二元偏好目标常见的分数压缩现象。实验发现:第一,排序损失在所有测试领域均显著优于回归方法的得分区分能力;第二,最优排序损失依赖数据特性:当质量层级分明时,列表式方法表现更优;当自然标注噪声较大时,成对方法更具鲁棒性;第三,使用精心筛选与结构化数据训练时,小型编码器模型可达到远超其规模的模型性能,表明数据质量比模型规模更重要;最后,在策略优化中作为奖励使用时,基于排序的评分能实现稳定收敛,而基于回归的奖励则完全失败。代码与数据见:https://github.com/Tankiit/PPO_Learning_to_rank
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
We reformulate explanation quality assessment as a ranking problem rather than a generation problem. Instead of optimizing models to produce a single "best" explanation token-by-token, we train reward models to discriminate among multiple candidate explanations and learn their relative quality. Concretely, we construct per-instance candidate sets with graded quality levels and train listwise and pairwise ranking models (ListNet, LambdaRank, RankNet) to preserve ordinal structure and avoid score compression typical of pointwise regression or binary preference objectives. We observe three findings: First, ranking losses consistently outperform regression on score separation across all domains tested. Second, the optimal ranking loss depends on data characteristics: listwise objectives excel with well-separated quality tiers, while pairwise methods are more robust to noisy natural annotations. Third, when trained on carefully curated and well-structured data, small encoder models can match models that are orders of magnitude larger, suggesting that data quality matters more than model scale. Finally, when used as rewards in policy optimization, ranking-based scores enable stable convergence in settings where regression-based rewards fail entirely. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/Tankiit/PPO_Learning_to_rank
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。