cs.AIOct 10, 2026

Can You Trust Your Preference Models? Stackelberg Games for Alignment

Authors: Riccardo Formenti, Aditya Agrawal, Vikas Garg

Organizations: Department of Mathematics ETH Zürich · Department of Computer Science Aalto University · YaiYai Ltd and Aalto University

Abstract

Language models are frequently aligned to human preferences via imperfect evaluators whose errors can be exploited during optimization. We train policies to search for comparisons on which an evaluator may reverse the underlying preference, providing candidates for additional supervision. Since human preferences are unavailable during policy training, we use disagreement among an ensemble of preference models as a proxy for prediction error. We formulate this search as a zero-sum Stackelberg game between two opposing policies, a Leader which tries to minimize disagreement, and a Follower which maximizes it. For a general class of finite contextual Stackelberg games, we establish equilibrium existence and, under regularization, uniqueness and a closed-form characterization. We introduce Stackelberg Mirror Descent-Ascent (SMIDA), a two-timescale algorithm with linear last-iterate convergence in the tabular setting, and develop a neural policy-gradient analogue. Experiments with a synthetic oracle support disagreement as an informative proxy for prediction error. On held out data the trained policies outperform reference policies and increase the fraction of comparisons that exceed a disagreement threshold and reverse the oracle's preference.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables9 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Mar 17, 2026

Alignment Makes Language Models Normative, Not Descriptive

Post-training alignment optimizes language models to match human preference signals, but this objective is not equivalent to modeling observed human behavior. We compare 120 base-aligned model pairs on more than 10,000 real human decisions in multi-round strategic games - bargaining, persuasion, negotiation, and repeated matrix games. In these settings, base models outperform their aligned counterparts in predicting human choices by nearly 10:1, robustly across model families, prompt formulations, and game configurations. This pattern reverses, however, in settings where human behavior is more likely to follow normative predictions: aligned models dominate on one-shot textbook games across all 12 types tested and on non-strategic lottery choices - and even within the multi-round games themselves, at round one, before interaction history develops. This boundary-condition pattern suggests that alignment induces a normative bias: it improves prediction when human behavior is relatively well captured by normative solutions, but hurts prediction in multi-round strategic settings, where behavior is shaped by descriptive dynamics such as reciprocity, retaliation, and history-dependent adaptation. These results reveal a fundamental trade-off between optimizing models for human use and using them as proxies for human behavior.
Sep 30, 2026

Robust Nash Alignment under Preference Uncertainty

Preference-based alignment methods typically optimize against a single preference model, and can therefore be brittle when pairwise preferences are uncertain: noisy, heterogeneous, or shift after deployment. To address these issues, we propose Robust Nash Alignment, a game-theoretic framework for alignment to uncertain pairwise preferences. Our formulation has a major learner seeking a policy with a large worst-case win rate against both an adversarial competitor and any preference kernel lying in an ambiguity set around a nominal preference. When the ambiguity set captures the uncertainty in preferences, the resulting robust objective of the game directly yields a certified lower bound on worst-case performance. However, we note this problem is computationally challenging to optimize, and to address this, we introduce a four-player primal-dual proxy game involving the leader policy, follower policy, adversarial kernel, and dual variable, and develop a single-loop optimistic mirror descent-ascent algorithm for it. We show that the proxy always lower-bounds the truncated hard-constrained objective, quantify the proxy-to-hard gap, and characterize an exactness condition under which the proxy recovers the robust objective. We then prove an O(1/T)\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{T}) average-iteration convergence for the proxy-game duality gap, which implies a near-optimal robust policy for the original robust objective. Experiments on controlled tabular games and LLM alignment with uncertain preference further validate the convergence theory and show improved performance over nominal baselines.
Sep 8, 2026

Inference-Time Nash Alignment

Preference-based fine-tuning methods such as RLHF and DPO require substantial compute and large preference datasets. They also need direct access to the model parameters which are not provided by many state-of-the art models. Inference-time alignment offers a cost-effective alternative without updating model parameters. However, existing inference-time methods rely on a scalar reward model derived under a Bradley-Terry assumption, which cannot represent general preferences. Following recent work on fine-tuning with generalized preferences, in this work, we initiate the study of inference-time alignment under general preferences. We formulate the problem as obtaining a Nash equilibrium of a two-player zero-sum game between policies. We propose two algorithms: Best-of-Nash (BoN) and Nash Mirror Descent (NMD). We prove that both algorithms achieve a duality gap that matches the problem lower bound. Empirically, we implement the two methods on three datasets, which shows that our methods substantially outperform the base policy, converging to the performance of the fine-tuned models. Moreover, our results show that NMD remains robust across the regularization parameter.