Checklists Are Better Than Reward Models For Aligning Language Models

Vijay Viswanathan, Yanchao Sun, Xiang Kong, Meng Cao, Graham Neubig, Tongshuang Wu

Keywords: alignment, rubrics, instruction following, RLHF

TL;DR: We show that using checklists to automatically grade responses for reinforcement learning leads to improved instruction following

Abstract: Language models must be adapted to understand and follow user instructions. Reinforcement learning is widely used to facilitate this —typically using fixed criteria such as "helpfulness" and "harmfulness". In our work, we instead propose using flexible, instruction-specific criteria as a means of broadening the impact that reinforcement learning can have in eliciting instruction following. We propose "Reinforcement Learning from Checklist Feedback" (RLCF). From instructions, we extract checklists and evaluate how well responses satisfy each item—using both AI judges and specialized verifier programs—then combine these scores to compute rewards for RL. We compare RLCF with other alignment methods on top of a strong instruction following model (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct) on five widely-studied benchmarks — RLCF is the only method to help on every benchmark, including a 4-point boost in hard satisfaction rate on FollowBench, a 6-point increase on InFoBench, and a 3-point rise in win rate on Arena-Hard. We show that RLCF can also be used off-policy to improve Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and OLMo 2 7B Instruct. These results establish rubrics as a key tool for improving language models' support of queries that express a multitude of needs. We release our our dataset of rubrics (WildChecklists), models, and code to the public.

Primary Area: Reinforcement learning (e.g., decision and control, planning, hierarchical RL, robotics)

Submission Number: 23956