DDO-RM: Distribution-Level Policy Improvement after Reward Learning
Authors: Tiantian Zhang, Jierui Zuo, Michael Chen, Wenping Wang
Organizations: Department of Computer Science Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA · Department of Management Science and Engineering Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Department of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Recent theory suggests that reward-model-first methods can be more sample-efficient than direct policy fitting when the reward function is statistically simpler than the induced policy. We propose DDO-RM, a finite-candidate decision-optimization method that converts reward scores into an explicit target distribution. Unlike PPO-based RLHF or DPO, DDO-RM performs a KL-regularized mirror-descent update to project the policy toward a reward-improved distribution over a candidate set. Preliminary experiments on Pythia-410M show that DDO-RM outperforms DPO in pair accuracy (0.52 to 0.56) and mean margin (0.13 to 0.53). Our framework provides a principled connection between reward learning and mirror-descent policy improvement.
Figures & tables
Component
Status in this paper
Reward modeling from human preferences
inherited from the RLHF pipeline
DPO-style direct pairwise policy fitting
baseline / related work
KL mirror descent and exponentiated-gradient update on the simplex
classical optimization tool, not claimed as new
Finite-candidate decision distribution for LLM post-training
proposed formulation
Using a learned reward model to construct a reward-improved target distribution over candidates
proposed DDO-RM policy-improvement step
Distilling the reward-improved distribution into the language model
proposed training interface
Table 1: Novelty boundary. DDO-RM uses a classical KL mirror-descent operator, but applies it as the second-stage policy-improvement map in reward-model-first LLM alignment.
Method
RM?
Candidate structure
Update type
Comparison role
DPO
No
Pair
Direct pairwise policy fitting
Direct-preference baseline
PPO-RLHF
Yes
Sampled responses
Stochastic policy-gradient update
Main reward-model baseline
GRPO
Yes / verifier
Group completions
Group-relative reward update
Multi-candidate or reasoning baseline
DDO-RM
Yes
Finite candidate set
Explicit KL / mirror-descent projection
Proposed reward-model policy-improvement method
Table 2: Comparison of preference-optimization methods. DDO-RM is closest to PPO-RLHF in information structure because both use an explicit reward model. DPO is a direct-preference reference baseline.
Figure 2: Mean metric comparison between DPO and DDO-RM across three seeds. From left to right: pair accuracy, AUC, and mean margin. DDO-RM outperforms DPO on all three metrics, with the largest absolute gain on mean margin.
Figure 3: Per-seed pair accuracy for DPO and DDO-RM across seeds 42, 13, and 3407. DDO-RM consistently exceeds DPO on every seed, with the gap widening on seeds 13 and 3407.
Metric
Method
Seed 42
Seed 13
Seed 3407
Mean
Pair Accuracy
DPO
0.5285
0.5205
0.5225
0.5238
DDO-RM
0.5410
0.5630
0.5765
0.5602
AUC
DPO
0.5335
0.5301
0.5308
0.5315
DDO-RM
0.5335
0.5388
0.5423
0.5382
Mean Margin
DPO
0.1308
0.1384
0.1439
0.1377
DDO-RM
0.2995
0.5196
0.7867
0.5353
Table 4: Held-out benchmark results on test_prefs . Higher is better for all metrics.
Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is a central post-training tool for aligning large language models, but its training reward is only a learned proxy for true human utility. This creates a decision problem under objective misspecification: the policy is optimized against an estimated reward, while deployment performance is governed by an unobserved population preference. The resulting gap leads to reward over-optimization, where proxy reward keeps improving after true quality deteriorates. We propose distributionally robust regret optimization (DRRO) for RLHF with a Wasserstein ambiguity set over reward laws, using promptwise ℓp distances between reward vectors as transport costs. Unlike standard distributionally robust optimization, which pessimizes worst-case value, DRRO pessimizes worst-case regret relative to the best policy under the same plausible reward perturbation. We show that the expressive-policy problem decomposes into promptwise regret problems. For each prompt, the inner adversary has a dual-norm closed form; under the ℓ1 transport cost used by our algorithm, the optimizer has a water-filling structure. These results lead to a practical policy-gradient algorithm that adds a simple sampled bonus to GRPO-style training. Theory and experiments both show that DRRO is less over-pessimistic than standard DRO and mitigates over-optimization more effectively than existing baselines.
Yikai Wang, Shang Liu, Jose Blanchet
Department of Statistics and Operations Research, University of North Carolina · Imperial Business School, Imperial College London · Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University
Reward models underpin the alignment of large language models, yet the dominant designs reduce each prompt--response pair to a point estimate or to a distribution from a fixed parametric family. This is at odds with human preference, which is inherently multimodal: the same response can be reasonably judged in many ways, and no single family covers all of them. To better fit this structure, we introduce DRM, a Diffusion Reward Model that recasts reward modeling as conditional density estimation over p(r∣x,y). Conditioned on a frozen LLM encoder, a lightweight Diffusion Transformer denoises Gaussian noise into a reward vector, placing no parametric assumption on the output distribution and naturally representing its multimodal structure. A single architecture handles both multi-attribute regression and pairwise preference data, and at inference N samples form an empirical reward distribution that can be aggregated into a scalar, a variance, or quantiles. Across five benchmarks, DRM matches or surpasses baselines under matched data and backbone, stays competitive with much larger discriminative, distributional, and generative RMs despite its modest training scale, and recovers multimodal reward structure where conventional heads collapse to a point. Uncertainty-aware rejection and lower-confidence-bound (LCB) aggregation further demonstrate that DRM can exploit distributional information beyond a scalar reward to improve reward-model decisions. Downstream RLHF experiments additionally show that using DRM as the training-time reward leads to improved policy performance, directly validating the practical benefit of diffusion-based reward modeling for RLHF training.
Xiangyang Wang, Bingxiang He, Zeyuan Liu +13
Tsinghua University · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has emerged as a popular alternative to Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), offering theoretical equivalence with simpler implementation. We prove this equivalence is conditional rather than universal, depending on an implicit assumption frequently violated in practice: the RLHF-optimal policy must prefer human-preferred responses. When this assumption fails, DPO optimizes relative advantage over the reference policy rather than absolute alignment with human preferences, leading to pathological convergence where policies decrease DPO loss while preferring dispreferred responses. We characterize when this assumption is violated, show the existence of an undesirable solution space, and prove that DPO and RLHF optimize fundamentally different objectives in such cases. To address this, we introduce Constrained Preference Optimization (CPO), augmenting RLHF with constraints for provable alignment. We further provide a geometric interpretation through soft margin ranking, revealing that DPO implements margin ranking with potentially negative targets. Our theoretical analysis establishes when DPOs' guarantees hold and provides solutions preserving simplicity with provable alignment. Comprehensive experiments on standard benchmarks demonstrate that CPO achieves state-of-the-art performance. Code is available at: https://github.com/visitworld123/CPO.
Zhiqin Yang, Yonggang Zhang, Wei Xue +3
1The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · 2LIGHTSPEED · 3Hong Kong Baptist University.