Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Theoretical Tensions in RLHF: Reconciling Empirical Success with Inconsistencies in Social Choice Theory

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that RLHF's reward model satisfies pairwise majority and Condorcet consistency when each pair of responses is judged by a single labeler, and that a majority-vote variant (Copeland RLHF) extends these guarantees to…

desk verdict The central reconciliation is undermined by a non-existence of the MLE in the very cases the axioms apply; the paper has salvageable ideas but is not correct as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12350 v1 pith:U4KOCJSV submitted 2025-06-14 stat.ML cs.AIcs.LG

Jiancong Xiao , Zhekun Shi , Kaizhao Liu , Qi Long , Weijie J. Su This is my paper
classification stat.MLcs.AIcs.LG MSC 91B1291B1462F07
keywords RLHFrewardmodelingsocialchoicetheoryCondorcetconsistencyCopelandruleBordacountpreferenceaggregationBradley-Terrymodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to resolve a paradox: RLHF works well in practice even though its reward-modeling step was shown to violate nearly every classic axiom of social choice theory. The resolution is Theorem 3.3: under Assumption 3.1, where every pair of responses is compared by exactly one labeler and cyclic preferences are allowed, the maximum-likelihood reward model satisfies pairwise majority consistency and Condorcet consistency. A companion result, Theorem 3.4, shows that aggregating multiple labelers by majority vote before fitting the reward model—Copeland RLHF—gives these guarantees, plus Pareto optimality and majority consistency, for arbitrary complete profiles. The paper also proposes new distribution-level axioms for alignment and shows RLHF satisfies the first two but fails group preference matching.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the MLE of a weighted pairwise-comparison loss $L(r_1,\dots,r_n)=-\sum_{i<j}[m_{ij}\log\sigma(r_i-r_j)+m_{ji}\log\sigma(r_j-r_i)]$. Lemma A.1 shows its first-order conditions imply $r_i>r_j$ if and only if $\sum_{k\neq i} m_{ik}/m > \sum_{k\neq j} m_{jk}/m$, so with binary weights $m_{ij}=\mathbf{1}[P(y_i\succ y_j)>1/2]$ the MLE reproduces the Copeland rule. The same lemma recovers the Borda count when $m_{ij}$ is the number of labelers preferring $y_i$ over $y_j$. Copeland rule properties—Pareto optimality, majority consistency, pairwise majority consistency, Condorcet consistency—transfer to the MLE.

What would settle it

Enumerate all preference profiles on $n=4$ responses satisfying Assumption 3.1 (each of the six pairs assigned a strict preference by exactly one labeler). Select those with a Condorcet winner, solve the MLE of Equation (2), and check whether the winner receives the highest reward. Theorem 3.3 predicts zero violations; any violation disproves it. As a boundary check, the complete 5-voter profile with rankings $y_1\succ y_2\succ y_3$ (3 voters) and $y_2\succ y_3\succ y_1$ (2 voters) has $y_1$ as Condorcet winner, but the Borda-count MLE ranks $y_2$ first, illustrating why the one-labeler assumption is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the apparent tension between RLHF and social choice theory is an artifact of how preference data are collected. Under Assumption 3.1, each pairwise comparison is a single binary vote cast by one labeler, and the MLE of Equation (2) then ranks responses exactly by the number of pairwise majority wins; consequently the reward order is Condorcet consistent and pairwise majority consistent. The proof works through a general weighted-comparison loss whose first-order condition forces the reward ranking to follow aggregated weights, which reduces to the Copeland rule for binary preferences and to the Borda count for counted preferences. The paper further proves that the majority-vote objective in Equation (3) implements the Copeland rule for complete profiles, and introduces three distributional axioms—preference matching, preference equivalence, and group preference matching—showing that the group-preference-matching distribution exists, is unique, and is not generally recovered by RLHF.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on Assumption 3.1, that exactly one labeler judges each pair of responses so each comparison is a 0/1 vote; with several labelers per pair or uneven comparison counts, the theorem lapses and previously known failures reappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under Assumption 3.1, when a pairwise majority ranking exists, the MLE reward order reproduces it exactly; when a Condorcet winner exists, that response receives the strictly highest reward.
  • Copeland RLHF (Equation (3)) satisfies Pareto optimality, majority consistency, pairwise majority consistency, and Condorcet consistency for any complete preference profile, so multi-labeler comparisons can be aggregated without losing these guarantees.
  • Standard RLHF satisfies the new preference matching and preference equivalence axioms but not group preference matching; there exist complete profiles where its output distribution differs from the group preference matching distribution.
  • The weighted loss in Equation (4), with weights $p_i^*/(p_i^*+p_j^*)$, makes the MLE recover the group preference matching distribution; approximating $p^*$ by the empirical frequency of first-place votes is suggested.
  • Because standard RLHF and Copeland RLHF coincide under Assumption 3.1, the practical success of current RLHF is tied to the cost-driven single-labeler labeling convention.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: Theorem 3.3 is vacuous unless Condorcet winners or pairwise majority rankings are common in real prompts; counting how often they occur in deployed preference datasets would bound how much of RLHF's success the theorem explains.
  • Beyond the paper: the Copeland-score equivalence yields a simple diagnostic—fit a reward model and compare its ranking to the number of pairwise majority wins; mismatches indicate the data violate the single-labeler assumption.
  • Beyond the paper: group preference matching could serve as a fairness benchmark: an alignment method's divergence from $p^*$ over natural voter subgroups (e.g., demographic or stylistic groups) measures how fairly it aggregates diverse preferences.
  • Beyond the paper: the existence and uniqueness of the group preference matching distribution suggest an algorithm that partitions voters into BT-embeddable subgroups and averages their preference-matching distributions, which would make the axiom operational on real datasets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper attempts to reconcile RLHF's empirical success with social-choice impossibility results. It introduces Assumption 3.1 (each pair of responses is compared by exactly one labeler) and claims that under this assumption the maximum-likelihood reward model in Eq. (2) satisfies pairwise majority consistency and Condorcet consistency. It then proposes a majority-vote loss in Eq. (3), called Copeland RLHF, claimed to satisfy all classical axioms, and introduces three distributional axioms—preference matching, preference equivalence, and group preference matching—proving that RLHF satisfies the first two but not the third. The proofs rely on Lemma A.1, which relates first-order conditions of the reward-modeling objective to Borda and Copeland scores.

Significance. If the theorems were correct, the paper would offer a compelling explanation for RLHF's practical success and a useful bridge between RLHF and social choice theory. The first-order condition analysis in Lemma A.1 is clean, and the connection to the Copeland rule is elegant. The proposed distributional axioms are a valuable contribution to the alignment literature. However, the central Theorem 3.3 is not well-defined because the MLE fails to exist for transitive tournaments, and the Section 4 existence and uniqueness proofs contain serious gaps. These issues are load-bearing and must be fixed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, Theorem 3.3; Appendix A.1, Lemma A.1] Theorem 3.3 is not well-defined because the MLE of Eq. (2) need not exist under Assumption 3.1. Consider n=3 with the allowed comparisons y1≻y2, y1≻y3, y2≻y3. The loss is log(1+e^{-(r1-r2)})+log(1+e^{-(r1-r3)})+log(1+e^{-(r2-r3)}), whose infimum is 0 as r1-r2 and r2-r3 tend to +∞, but no finite parameter vector attains it. Hence the 'MLE' does not exist, so the claimed 'strictly highest reward' assignment is undefined. Lemma A.1 only derives a first-order sign equivalence and never proves existence of a minimizer. The same issue affects Theorem 3.4 and Lemma 3.5 for any transitive majority tournament, which is precisely the case pairwise majority consistency concerns. The claims can be repaired by studying a regularized or limiting estimator, but that is not what the paper states or proves.
  2. [Theorem 4.6; Appendix B.3] The existence proof does not establish that the actual preference profile is BT-embeddable. A complete strict ranking has P(y(i)≻y(j))=1 for all i<j, which cannot be represented by finite BT rewards because BT probabilities are strictly between 0 and 1. The proof replaces adjacent pairwise probabilities by 1-epsilon and derives a geometric distribution, but that is a different profile: under the constructed BT model, non-adjacent pair probabilities are not 1. Consequently, the claim that every complete profile admits a partition into BT-embeddable subgroups is unproved and is false for the single-voter complete profile. A limiting or extended definition of BT-embeddability is needed, together with a proof that the group preference matching distribution is well-defined under that definition.
  3. [Theorem 4.7; Appendix B.4] The uniqueness proof assumes without proof the additivity property p*_{U_k} = (1/m_k) Σ_{i∈U_k} p*_i for every BT-embeddable subgroup. This property does not follow from Definition 4.5, and the individual distributions p*_i are undefined for voters whose strict rankings are not BT-embeddable. Even if p*_i were defined through a limiting construction, the equality with the subgroup's preference matching distribution would need to be proved from the pairwise proportions. The uniqueness of the group preference matching distribution is therefore not established.
  4. [Proposition 4.1] The proposition that RLHF fails group preference matching is stated without proof or an explicit counterexample. Because this negative result is one of the main conclusions of Section 4, the authors should provide a concrete preference profile and compute the MLE ranking against p*.
  5. [Section 4.3, Eq. (4)] The claim that the MLE of the modified loss in Eq. (4) 'recovers reward values that are consistent with the target distribution p*' is not justified and is generally false: unless p* itself is BT-embeddable, no reward vector r satisfies σ(r_i-r_j)=p*_i/(p*_i+p*_j) for all pairs. The first-order conditions only enforce an averaged matching condition. The authors should either prove the claim under additional assumptions or reformulate the proposed loss as a projection or approximation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Definition 2.1] The text says 'refereed to as candidates'; this should be 'referred to as candidates'.
  2. [Appendix A.1, proof of Lemma A.1] In simplifying σ(r_i-r_j)-σ(r_j-r_i), the denominator of the last term is written as exp(r_i)+exp(r_k); it should be exp(r_i)+exp(r_j). The sign conclusion is unaffected, but the algebra should be corrected.
  3. [Introduction and Section 3.1] The paper repeatedly states that Assumption 3.1 is 'empirically plausible' and that its conditions are 'frequently satisfied' in real alignment tasks, but no dataset evidence or citation is provided. The authors should either add an empirical analysis or soften the claim.
  4. [Theorem 3.3 proof in Appendix A.3] The proof says Theorem 3.3 is a special case of Theorem 3.4, but Theorem 3.4 is stated for complete preference profiles while Assumption 3.1 does not require each labeler to provide a complete ranking. The relationship between these two profile notions should be clarified.
  5. [Theorem 4.4 proof in Appendix B.2] The relabeling notation m_{(i)(k)} is confusing and could give the appearance of circular reasoning. Please define the relabeled indices explicitly and show how the pairwise counts transform under the equivalence mapping.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

The central RLHF-vs-social-choice theorems are derived from self-contained first-order conditions; the only close-to-circular passages are transparent definitional equivalences, not load-bearing predictions.

full rationale

The main derivation is self-contained. Theorem 3.3 is proved via Lemma A.1, which computes first-order conditions of the general logistic loss (5) and shows the MLE ranking is equivalent to ordering by normalized pairwise counts; under Assumption 3.1 these counts are 0/1 wins, so the MLE implements the Copeland rule. The required Copeland properties are then proved directly in Theorems A.2-A.5 rather than imported from prior work. The same lemma reproduces the known Borda-count connection, but the argument is in the paper. The preference-matching characterization in Theorem 4.2 is essentially the definition of BT-embeddability restated, but it is explicitly a characterization and is not used to derive an empirical success claim. The proposed loss in Eq. (4) is parameterized by the target distribution p*, so its recoverability is by construction; the paper transparently states that estimating p* is the remaining challenge, so this is not a disguised prediction. Self-citations, such as Liu et al. (2025) for cycle frequency and Xiao et al. (2024) for preference matching, are contextual and do not carry the load-bearing proofs. The most serious issue is a regularity gap rather than circularity: Lemma A.1 assumes that an MLE exists, while for deterministic transitive profiles the unregularized logistic likelihood has no finite maximizer, so the strict-ranking conclusion may be undefined. That is a correctness/existence concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The main theorems in Section 3 rest only on standard maximum likelihood and social choice facts. The Section 4 framework adds a free epsilon parameter and several ad hoc assumptions about BT-embeddability of strict rankings, which are the least supported parts of the paper.

free parameters (1)
  • epsilon approximation in Theorem 4.6 = epsilon -> 0 (limit)
    The proof of existence of the group preference matching distribution turns a single voter's deterministic 1:0 pairwise ratios into 1-epsilon vs epsilon and then takes a limit. The resulting distribution depends on c = epsilon/(1-epsilon); this is an ad hoc mathematical device, not an empirically fitted value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.1: for any two responses exactly one labeler provides the comparison; cycles allowed; labeler may vary per pair.
    This assumption carries the main reconciliation in Theorem 3.3. It excludes multi-labeler pairwise data and unequal comparison counts, the regimes where prior negative results live.
  • domain assumption Strict preferences without ties, with arbitrary tie-breaking.
    Used throughout the paper to keep pairwise majority strict; it simplifies but may not hold in real preference labels.
  • ad hoc to paper A single strict ranking is BT-embeddable via the epsilon limit.
    In the proof of Theorem 4.6, exact ratios of 1:0 are not representable by a finite-parameter Bradley-Terry model, so the authors approximate and pass to a limit. This is not a standard result and is not fully justified.
  • ad hoc to paper For any BT-embeddable subgroup, its preference matching distribution is the average of its members' individual preference matching distributions.
    Used in the uniqueness proof of Theorem 4.7 without proof; unclear when individual strict rankings have no exact preference matching distribution.
invented entities (1)
  • Group preference matching distribution p*
    purpose: Defines a target distribution over responses that averages the preference matching distributions of a partition of voters into BT-embeddable subgroups.
    Introduced by the authors; no external benchmark. Its existence and uniqueness proofs depend on the epsilon approximation and an unproved additivity assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theoretical Tensions in RLHF: Reconciling Empirical Success with Inconsistencies in Social Choice Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U4KOCJSV

@misc{pith2026250612350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theoretical Tensions in RLHF: Reconciling Empirical Success with Inconsistencies in Social Choice Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U4KOCJSV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12350}
}
read the original abstract

Despite its empirical success, Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has been shown to violate almost all the fundamental axioms in social choice theory -- such as majority consistency, pairwise majority consistency, and Condorcet consistency. This raises a foundational question: why does RLHF perform so well in practice if it fails these seemingly essential properties? In this paper, we resolve this paradox by showing that under mild and empirically plausible assumptions on the preference profile, RLHF does satisfy pairwise majority and Condorcet consistency. These assumptions are frequently satisfied in real-world alignment tasks, offering a theoretical explanation for RLHF's strong practical performance. Furthermore, we show that a slight modification to the reward modeling objective can ensure pairwise majority or Condorcet consistency even under general preference profiles, thereby improving the alignment process. Finally, we go beyond classical axioms in economic and social choice theory and introduce new alignment criteria -- preference matching, preference equivalence, and group preference matching -- that better reflect the goal of learning distributions over responses. We show that while RLHF satisfies the first two properties, it fails to satisfy the third. We conclude by discussing how future alignment methods may be designed to satisfy all three.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Therefore, a preference matching distribution exists

    Then p⋆ i p⋆ i +p ⋆ j = exp(ri) exp(ri) + exp(rj) =P(y i ≻y j), sop ⋆ satisfies the requirement. Therefore, a preference matching distribution exists. B.2 Proof of Theorem 4.4 Proof.LetL(r 1, . . . , rn)be the reward learning objective: L(r1, . . . , rn) =− X 1≤i<j≤n [mij logσ(r i −r j) +m ji logσ(r j −r i)], σ(x) = 1 1 +e −x , where mij is the number of ...

    work page 2023

  2. [4]

    Vincent Conitzer, Rachel Freedman, Jobst Heitzig, Wesley H Holliday, Bob M Jacobs, Nathan Lambert, Milan Mossé, Eric Pacuit, Stuart Russell, Hailey Schoelkopf, Emanuel Tewolde, and William S. Zwicker. Social choice for AI alignment: Dealing with diverse human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10271,

    arXiv

  3. [5]

    Mapping social choice theory to RLHF.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13038,

    Jessica Dai and Eve Fleisig. Mapping social choice theory to RLHF.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13038,

    arXiv

  4. [8]

    Policy optimization in rlhf: The impact of out-of-preference data

    Ziniu Li, Tian Xu, and Yang Yu. Policy optimization in rlhf: The impact of out-of-preference data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10584,

    arXiv

  5. [10]

    Jackpot! alignment as a maximal lottery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19266,

    Roberto-Rafael Maura-Rivero, Marc Lanctot, Francesco Visin, and Kate Larson. Jackpot! alignment as a maximal lottery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19266,

    arXiv

  6. [11]

    AI alignment and social choice: Fundamental limitations and policy implications

    Abhilash Mishra. AI alignment and social choice: Fundamental limitations and policy implications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16048,

    arXiv

  7. [12]

    Nash learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00886,

    Rémi Munos, Michal Valko, Daniele Calandriello, Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Mark Rowland, Zhaohan Daniel Guo, Yunhao Tang, Matthieu Geist, Thomas Mesnard, Andrea Michi, et al. Nash learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00886,

    arXiv

  8. [14]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,...

    arXiv

Show all 31 references
  1. [15]

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov

    URL https:// openreview.net/forum?id=kEVcNxtqXk. John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

    arXiv

  2. [17]

    Distributional preference learn- ing: Understanding and accounting for hidden context in RLHF.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08358,

    Anand Siththaranjan, Cassidy Laidlaw, and Dylan Hadfield-Menell. Distributional preference learn- ing: Understanding and accounting for hidden context in RLHF.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08358,

    arXiv

  3. [18]

    Understanding the perfor- mance gap between online and offline alignment algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08448,

    Yunhao Tang, Daniel Zhaohan Guo, Zeyu Zheng, Daniele Calandriello, Yuan Cao, Eugene Tarassov, Rémi Munos, Bernardo Ávila Pires, Michal Valko, Yong Cheng, et al. Understanding the perfor- mance gap between online and offline alignment algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08448,

    arXiv

  4. [19]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805,

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Yonghui Wu, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805,

    arXiv

  5. [20]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971,

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971,

    arXiv

  6. [21]

    Zhilin Wang, Yi Dong, Jiaqi Zeng, Virginia Adams, Makesh Narsimhan Sreedhar, Daniel Egert, Olivier Delalleau, Jane Scowcroft, Neel Kant, Aidan Swope, et al

    URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=PDnEDS244P. Zhilin Wang, Yi Dong, Jiaqi Zeng, Virginia Adams, Makesh Narsimhan Sreedhar, Daniel Egert, Olivier Delalleau, Jane Scowcroft, Neel Kant, Aidan Swope, et al. Helpsteer: Multi-attribute helpfulness dataset for steerlm. InProceeding...

    2024

  7. [22]

    On the algorithmic bias of aligning large language models with rlhf: Preference collapse and matching regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16455,

    Jiancong Xiao, Ziniu Li, Xingyu Xie, Emily Getzen, Cong Fang, Qi Long, and Weijie J Su. On the algorithmic bias of aligning large language models with rlhf: Preference collapse and matching regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16455,

    arXiv

  8. [23]

    Restoring calibration for aligned large language models: A calibration-aware fine-tuning approach

    Jiancong Xiao, Bojian Hou, Zhanliang Wang, Ruochen Jin, Qi Long, Weijie J Su, and Li Shen. Restoring calibration for aligned large language models: A calibration-aware fine-tuning approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01997,

  9. [24]

    Iterative preference learning from human feedback: Bridging theory and practice for rlhf under kl- constraint

    Wei Xiong, Hanze Dong, Chenlu Ye, Ziqi Wang, Han Zhong, Heng Ji, Nan Jiang, and Tong Zhang. Iterative preference learning from human feedback: Bridging theory and practice for rlhf under kl- constraint. InICLR 2024 Workshop on Mathematical and Empirical Understanding of Founda...

    2024

  10. [25]

    Asymptotics of language model alignment

    Joy Qiping Yang, Salman Salamatian, Ziteng Sun, Ananda Theertha Suresh, and Ahmad Beirami. Asymptotics of language model alignment. In2024 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pages 2027–2032. IEEE,

    2027

  11. [26]

    Provable multi-party reinforcement learning with diverse human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05006,

    Huiying Zhong, Zhun Deng, Weijie J Su, Zhiwei Steven Wu, and Linjun Zhang. Provable multi-party reinforcement learning with diverse human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05006,

    arXiv

  12. [27]

    14 A Proofs of Technical Results in Section 3 In this section, we provide the proofs of Theorem 3.3, Theorem 3.4, and Lemma 3.5. Since the proof of Theorem 3.3 is a special case of Theorem 3.4, and the latter builds upon Lemma 3.5, we present the proofs in reverse order relati...

    2024

  13. [29]

    The work by Tang et al

    demonstrated that proximal policy optimization (PPO) [Schulman et al., 2017] may not fully leverage RLHF’s capacity to align large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. The work by Tang et al

    2017

  14. [30]

    Outside of fine-tuning, model editing has emerged as a complementary strategy to modify LLM behavior across tasks [Jin et al., 2025]

    investigated how model diversity can be maintained during the supervised fine-tuning (SFT) stage. Outside of fine-tuning, model editing has emerged as a complementary strategy to modify LLM behavior across tasks [Jin et al., 2025]. Several extensions of the DPO method have bee...

    2025

  15. [31]

    [2024], which constrain its robustness relative to reinforcement learning techniques like PPO

    and Xu et al. [2024], which constrain its robustness relative to reinforcement learning techniques like PPO. Furthermore, the on-policy nature of reward-based fine-tuning helps alleviate distribution shift between training and deployment scenarios, thereby boosting LLM reliabi...

    2024

  16. [2006]

    Learn your reference model for real good alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09656,

    Alexey Gorbatovski, Boris Shaposhnikov, Alexey Malakhov, Nikita Surnachev, Yaroslav Aksenov, Ian Maksimov, Nikita Balagansky, and Daniil Gavrilov. Learn your reference model for real good alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09656,

    arXiv

  17. [2009]

    Procaccia, Itai Shapira, Yevgeniy V orobeychik, and Junlin Wu

    Luise Ge, Daniel Halpern, Evi Micha, Ariel D. Procaccia, Itai Shapira, Yevgeniy V orobeychik, and Junlin Wu. Axioms for AI alignment from human feedback. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024a. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id...

    arXiv

  18. [2016]

    Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712,

    Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712,

    arXiv

  19. [2017]

    Fundamental limits of game-theoretic llm alignment: Smith consistency and preference matching.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20627,

    Zhekun Shi, Kaizhao Liu, Qi Long, Weijie J Su, and Jiancong Xiao. Fundamental limits of game-theoretic llm alignment: Smith consistency and preference matching.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20627,

    arXiv

  20. [2020]

    Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774,

    12 OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774,

    arXiv

  21. [2023]

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=bx24KpJ4Eb

    ISSN 2835-8856. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=bx24KpJ4Eb. Souradip Chakraborty, Jiahao Qiu, Hui Yuan, Alec Koppel, Furong Huang, Dinesh Manocha, Am- rit Singh Bedi, and Mengdi Wang. MaxMin-RLHF: Towards equitable alignment of large language models with diverse human prefe...

    arXiv

  22. [2024]

    Dataset reset policy optimization for rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08495,

    Jonathan D Chang, Wenhao Shan, Owen Oertell, Kianté Brantley, Dipendra Misra, Jason D Lee, and Wen Sun. Dataset reset policy optimization for rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08495,

    arXiv

  23. [2025]

    Kaizhao Liu, Qi Long, Zhekun Shi, Weijie J Su, and Jiancong Xiao

    URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=NQEe7B7bSw. Kaizhao Liu, Qi Long, Zhekun Shi, Weijie J Su, and Jiancong Xiao. Statistical impossibility and possibility of aligning llms with human preferences: From condorcet paradox to nash equilibrium. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10990,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.