OTROPE: Optimal Transport-based Robust Off-policy Evaluation for Large Language Models

The alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) utilizes Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) for non-verifiable domains such as long-form question answering and open-ended instruction following. These domains often rely on LLM based auto-raters to provide granular, multi-tier discrete rewards (e.g., 1-10 rubrics) that are inherently stochastic due to prompt sensitivity and sampling randomness. We empirically verify the stochasticity of auto-raters that can propagate and corrupt standard advantage estimators like GRPO and MaxRL, as a noisy reward samples can skew normalization statistics and degrade the global learning signal. Empirically, sampling more rewards and taking majority voting may reduce the noise and improve performance, but this approach is computationally expensive. To address this bottleneck, we introduce $\textbf{O}$rdinal $\textbf{D}$ecomposition for $\textbf{R}$obust $\textbf{P}$olicy $\textbf{O}$ptimization ($\textbf{ODRPO}$), a framework that structurally isolates evaluation noise by decomposing discrete rewards into a sequence of ordinal binary indicators. By independently computing and accumulating advantages across these progressively challenging success thresholds, ODRPO prevents outlier evaluations from corrupting the global update while establishing an implicit, variance-aware learning curriculum. Empirically, ODRPO achieves robust performance on Qwen2.5-7B and Qwen3-4B models, outperforming baselines with relative improvements of upto 14.8% on FACTS-grounding-v2 and 7.5% on Alpaca-Evals. Critically, these gains are achieved with negligible training-time overhead, as ODRPO requires no additional compute per step compared to standard estimators. Supported by theoretical analysis confirming its optimization stability, ODRPO provides a scalable and robust framework for aligning models within the noisy, discrete evaluation landscape of modern RLAIF.

Current Large Language Model (LLM) evaluation frameworks utilize the same static prompt template across all models under evaluation. This differs from the common industry practice of using prompt optimization (PO) techniques to optimize the prompt for each model to maximize application performance. In this paper, we investigate the effect of PO towards LLM evaluations. Our results on public academic and internal industry benchmarks show that PO greatly affects the final ranking of models. This highlights the importance of practitioners performing PO per model when conducting evaluations to choose the best model for a given task.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has evolved to be one of the main methods for fine-tuning large language models (LLMs). However, existing RLHF methods are non-robust, and their performance deteriorates if the downstream task differs significantly from the preference dataset used in fine-tuning. In order to mitigate this problem, we introduce a distributionally robust RLHF for fine-tuning LLMs. In particular, our goal is to ensure that a fine-tuned model retains its performance even when the distribution of prompts significantly differs from the distribution encountered during fine-tuning. We formulate distributionally robust optimization (DRO) version of two popular fine-tuning methods -- (1) reward-based RLHF and (2) reward-free DPO (direct preference optimization). We propose a minibatch gradient descent based algorithms for both of them, and theoretically prove convergence guarantees for the algorithms. Subsequently, we evaluate our algorithms on an out-of-distribution (OOD) task by first training the model on the Unified-Feedback dataset and evaluating its performance on two different datasets. The experimental results show that our robust training improves the accuracy of the learned reward models on average, and markedly on some tasks, such as reasoning. Furthermore, we show that the robust versions of policy optimization methods, similarly improve performance on OOD tasks.