Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Group Robust Preference Optimization in Reward-free RLHF

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2405.20304 v1 pith:7OVGIHWB submitted 2024-05-30 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords groupspreferencegrporobustdatagroupllmsoptimization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Adapting large language models (LLMs) for specific tasks usually involves fine-tuning through reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) on preference data. While these data often come from diverse labelers' groups (e.g., different demographics, ethnicities, company teams, etc.), traditional RLHF approaches adopt a "one-size-fits-all" approach, i.e., they indiscriminately assume and optimize a single preference model, thus not being robust to unique characteristics and needs of the various groups. To address this limitation, we propose a novel Group Robust Preference Optimization (GRPO) method to align LLMs to individual groups' preferences robustly. Our approach builds upon reward-free direct preference optimization methods, but unlike previous approaches, it seeks a robust policy which maximizes the worst-case group performance. To achieve this, GRPO adaptively and sequentially weights the importance of different groups, prioritizing groups with worse cumulative loss. We theoretically study the feasibility of GRPO and analyze its convergence for the log-linear policy class. By fine-tuning LLMs with GRPO using diverse group-based global opinion data, we significantly improved performance for the worst-performing groups, reduced loss imbalances across groups, and improved probability accuracies compared to non-robust baselines.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Large Reasoning Models are not thinking straight: on the unreliability of thinking trajectories

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Large reasoning models frequently ignore explicitly injected ground-truth solutions mid-trajectory and continue to overthink, often ending on incorrect answers.

  2. DeepSeek: Paradigm Shifts and Technical Evolution in Large AI Models

    cs.AI 2025-07 unverdicted

    A survey of DeepSeek's V3 and R1 models covering MLA, MoE, MTP, GRPO, and training engineering, with no new experimental results.

Pith tools