Steerable Pluralistic Policy Alignment from Anonymized Crowd Feedback
Authors: Akansha Kalra, Ellen R. Novoseller, Vernon J. Lawhern, Daniel S. Brown
Organizations: Kahlert School of Computing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA · U.S. Army DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA
Pluralistic alignment requires AI systems to learn from diverse populations whose preferences may reflect heterogeneous or even conflicting objectives, and to personalize their behavior to individual users. Existing approaches in pluralistic alignment often assume access to annotator identities and rely on powerful pretrained representations to model individual preference variations. We propose Preference-PCA Pluralistic Learning (P3L), a novel framework for pluralistic alignment that jointly learns trajectory embeddings and the shared basis of preference directions via PCA decomposition from heterogeneous crowd feedback without requiring annotator identities. At test time, our approach enables rapid and accurate personalized reward learning and downstream policy optimization. Experiments across multiple embodied control tasks demonstrate that P3L enables steerable personal alignment that generalizes beyond the offline dataset to out-of-distribution new users and attains competitive RL and test performance, while substantially reducing computational cost and supporting variable adaptation query budgets.
Figure 2: Environments MO-Highway, MO-Reacher, MO-Humanoid and MO-Kitchen.
Baselines
P3L
Environment
SingleRM
VPL
Privileged-Traj-MaskedDP
Anonymized-CLS-MaskedDP
MO-Highway
70.222 ± 3.326
66.667 ± 3.143
84.889 ± 5.145
78.667 ± 4.576
MO-Reacher
54.667 ± 0.667
52.00 ±3.055
93.000 ± 1.453
93.500 ± 1.434
MO-Humanoid
76.280 ± 1.294
74.920 ± 2.018
88.320 ± 0.515
77.880 ± 1.017
MO-Kitchen-2d
50.000 ± 0.000
50.400 ± 0.800
100.000 ± 0.0
90.400 ± 4.079
MO-Kitchen-3d
53.185 ± 1.582
51.407 ± 1.525
84.148 ± 2.227
82.667 ± 3.647
Table 1: Average user accuracy of held out test-set preference queries on different environments reported as Mean and Std across 5 seeds with number of different users possible on different objectives reflected next to each environment . Both of our approaches, Privileged-Traj-MaskedDP which assumes privileged access to annotator id (as does VPL), as well as Anonymized-CLS-MaskedDP which does not assume any access to annotator identity, outperform both the baselines Single Reward Model and VPL on average across all users. The blue background indicates the best performance, while the gray background denotes the second-best performance.
Baselines
P3L
Environment
SingleRM-RL
VPL-OfflineRL
VPL-RL
Privileged-RL
Anonymized-RL
MO-Highway
4.303 ± 9.059
8.409 ± 15.063
4.354 ± 18.164
7.721 ± 16.435
5.126 ± 20.505
MO-Reacher
16.704 ± 1.999
16.090 ± 12.372
20.427 ± 1.616
31.708 ± 4.520
28.603 ± 1.996
MO-Humanoid
-48.433 ± 171.307
-51.301 ± 171.186
-46.240 ± 172.485
-10.509 ± 169.372
-38.794 ± 173.861
MO-Kitchen-2d
0.274 ± 0.274
0.363 ± 0.037
–
0.834 ± 0.154
0.334 ± 0.182
MO-Kitchen-3d
0.181 ± 0.140
0.134 ± 0.188
–
0.799 ± 0.194
0.243 ± 0.325
Table 2: Average RL performance of personalized policies evaluated for 100 episodes across 5 seeds reported in terms of mean +/- std over rewards for all environments except MO-Kitchen, in which task success rate is used as metric . For this table only, we abbreviate Privileged Traj-MaskedDP to Privileged and Anonymized CLS-MaskedDP to Anonymized consistent with the rest of the paper. Privileged-RL achieves the best performance across most of the environments, consistently demonstrating strong performance relative to the baselines, while Anonymized-RL remains competitive with or surpasses the baselines without access to annotator identity, suggesting that P3L generates policies that are better aligned with individual user preferences. Blue denotes the best result and gray the second-best.
Figure 3: (a) Training time in seconds reported as mean and standard deviation across 5 seeds: the lower time it takes, the faster the framework is. (b) Test-time accuracy vs. the number of queries used for adaptation demonstrates that both our frameworks Traj-MaskedDP and CLS-MaskedDP achieve high accuracy around 90% with smaller number of preference queries as with bigger adaptation query set size whereas VPL fails to achieve a comparable performance even when fed 100x adaptation queries per user.
Environment
Eval Metric
Baseline
P3L
VPL
Privileged-Traj-MaskedDP
Anonymized-CLS-MaskedDP
MO-Highway
Test
42.667 ± 30.346
81.333 ± 9.978
78.000 ± 8.641
RL
-5.270 ± 12.064
4.866 ± 20.605
7.119 ± 17.783
MO-Reacher
Test
42.333 ± 36.189
100.00±0.00
94.333±9.815
RL
19.598 ± 2.251
32.552±1.585
22.717±5.334
Table 3: Out-of-distribution adaptation to new users reported as mean ± std over 5 seeds for test preference accuracy and RL performance (100 evaluation rollouts) . P3L generalizes better to unseen users, achieving higher preference accuracy and stronger downstream RL performance than VPL, both with and without access to annotator identity.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Baselines
MaskedDP
SingleRM
VPL
Traj-MaskedDP
CLS-MaskedDP
User 1
68.000 ± 13.597
73.333 ± 22.311
92.000 ± 7.775
85.333 ± 11.470
User 2
77.333 ± 9.97
77.333 ± 9.978
78.667 ± 13.597
77.333 ± 9.043
User 3
65.333 ± 13.597
49.333 ± 26.866
84.000 ± 5.333
73.333 ± 4.216
Average User Accuracy
70.222 ± 3.326
66.667 ± 3.143
84.889 ± 5.145
78.667 ± 4.576
Appendix
Table 4: Accuracy of Held out Test-Set Preference queries on MO-Highway across reported as mean and standard deviation across 5 seeds with 30 adaptive preference queries and 15 held out preference test queries. Both of our approaches, TrajMaskedDP which assumes access to privileged annotator ids (as does VPL), as well as CLSMaskedDP which does not assume any access to annotator identity, outperform VPL, for individual users, as well as on average. Single Reward Model achieves competitive performance for one user as our approaches but on average fails to align with each user.
Baselines
MaskedDP
SingleRM
VPL
Traj-MaskedDP
CLS-MaskedDP
User 1
44.000 ± 2.494
27.333 ± 21.848
96.000 ± 6.464
87.333 ± 3.887
User 2
65.333 ± 4.522
71.333 ± 18.086
93.333 ± 2.981
92.667 ± 2.494
User 3
24.000 ± 3.887
52.667 ± 32.069
87.333 ± 6.464
99.333 ± 1.333
User 4
85.333 ± 4.989
56.667 ± 35.777
95.333 ± 3.399
94.667 ± 2.667
Average User Accuracy
54.667 ± 0.667
52.000 ± 3.055
93.000 ± 1.453
93.500 ± 1.434
Appendix
Table 5: Accuracy of Held out Test-Set Preference queries on MO-Reacher across 5 seeds with 60 adaptive preference queries and 30 held out preference test queries. Both of our approaches, Traj-MaskedDP which assumes access to privileged annotator ids (as does VPL), as well as CLS-MaskedDP which does not assume any access to annotator identity, outperform both the baselines Single Reward Model and VPL, for individual users, as well as on average. The blue background indicates the best performance, while the gray background denotes the second-best performance.
Baselines
MaskedDP
SingleRM
VPL
Traj-MaskedDP
CLS-MaskedDP
User 1
81.000 ± 5.099
76.600 ± 7.864
90.400 ± 2.939
81.000 ± 2.191
User 2
72.400 ± 5.678
74.800 ± 5.741
85.800 ± 3.059
82.400 ± 0.800
User 3
73.200 ± 5.706
68.800 ± 6.046
88.000 ± 1.789
70.000 ± 2.191
User 4
71.400 ± 4.800
74.600 ± 6.343
89.000 ± 3.033
75.400 ± 2.653
User 5
83.400 ± 7.940
79.800 ± 6.524
88.400 ± 3.499
80.600 ± 2.653
Appendix
Table 6: Accuracy of Held out Test-Set Preference queries on MO-Humanoid across 5 seeds with 250 adaptive preference queries and 100 held out preference test queries. Both of our approaches, Traj-MaskedDP which assumes access to privileged annotator ids (as does VPL), as well as CLS-MaskedDP which does not assume any access to annotator identity, outperform both the baselines Single Reward Model and VPL, for most of individual users, as well as on average . The blue background indicates the best performance, while the gray background denotes the second-best performance.
Baselines
MaskedDP
SingleRM
VPL
Traj-MaskedDP
CLS-MaskedDP
User 1
48.800 ± 6.400
63.200 ± 39.387
100.000 ± 0.000
90.400 ± 4.079
User 2
51.200 ± 6.400
37.600 ± 38.831
100.000 ± 0.000
90.400 ± 4.079
Average User Accuracy
50.000 ± 0.000
50.400 ± 0.800
100.000 ± 0.0
90.400 ± 4.079
Appendix
Table 7: Accuracy of Held out Test-Set Preference queries on MO-Kitchen-2d across 5 seeds with 15 adaptive preference queries and 25 held out preference test queries. Both of our approaches, Traj-MaskedDP which assumes access to privileged annotator ids (as does VPL), as well as CLS-MaskedDP which does not assume any access to annotator identity, outperform both the baselines Single Reward Model and VPL, for most of individual users, as well as on average. The blue background indicates the best performance, while the gray background denotes the second-best performance.
Baselines
MaskedDP
SingleRM
VPL
Traj-MaskedDP
CLS-MaskedDP
User 1
72.000 ± 12.696
47.111 ± 16.354
84.444 ± 4.869
84.444 ± 3.718
User 2
36.889 ± 12.927
37.778 ± 9.428
82.667 ± 2.948
79.556 ± 7.221
User 3
50.667 ± 6.029
69.333 ± 17.855
85.333 ± 3.875
84.000 ± 3.266
Average User Accuracy
53.185 ± 1.582
51.407 ± 1.525
84.148 ± 2.227
82.667 ± 3.647
Appendix
Table 8: Accuracy of Held out Test-Set Preference queries on MO-Kitchen-3d across 5 seeds with 90 adaptive preference queries and 45 held out preference test queries. Both of our approaches, Traj-MaskedDP which assumes access to privileged annotator ids (as does VPL), as well as CLS-MaskedDP which does not assume any access to annotator identity, outperform both the baselines Single Reward Model and VPL, for most of individual users, as well as on average. The blue background indicates the best performance, while the gray background denotes the second-best performance.
Baselines
MaskedDP
SingleRM
VPL
Traj-MaskedDP
CLS-MaskedDP
User 1
65.778 ± 10.242
54.667 ± 17.104
79.111 ± 4.467
75.556 ± 4.332
User 2
51.333 ± 8.025
48.444 ± 10.390
73.778 ± 3.823
69.333 ± 5.287
User 3
42.889 ± 5.287
40.222 ± 9.671
77.556 ± 2.931
67.333 ± 3.414
User 4
61.111 ± 10.352
63.556 ± 4.838
83.333 ± 2.534
76.444 ± 3.326
Average User Accuracy
55.278 ± 2.159
51.722 ± 2.905
78.444 ± 0.572
72.167 ± 2.021
Appendix
Table 9: Accuracy of Held out Test-Set Preference queries on MO-Kitchen-4d across 5 seeds with 180 adaptive preference queries and 90 held out preference test queries. Both of our approaches, Traj-MaskedDP which assumes access to privileged annotator ids (as does VPL), as well as CLS-MaskedDP which does not assume any access to annotator identity, outperform both the baselines Single Reward Model and VPL, for most of individual users, as well as on average. The blue background indicates the best performance, while the gray background denotes the second-best performance.
Baselines
MaskedDP
SingleRM-PPO
VPL-OfflineRL-IQL
VPL-OnlineRL-PPO
Traj-MaskedDP-PPO
CLS-MaskedDP-PPO
User 1
3.335 ± 4.459
2.247 ± 3.455
4.828 ± 4.125
5.120 ± 3.651
6.105 ± 3.984
User 2
15.850 ± 12.777
29.150 ± 3.603
26.359 ± 8.281
29.024 ± 3.604
29.736 ± 1.043
User 3
-6.276 ± 9.282
-6.170 ± 10.090
-18.126 ± 10.030
-10.980 ± 10.782
-20.462 ± 7.263
Average RL performance
4.303 ± 9.059
8.409 ± 15.063
4.354 ± 18.164
7.721 ± 16.435
5.126 ± 20.505
Appendix
Table 10: RL performance MO-Highway presented in terms of mean and standard deviation across 5 seeds with 100 rollouts per seed. We achieve competitive performance as compared to baselines on individual users and on average except User 3 which prefers strictly conservative driving.
Baselines
MaskedDP
SingleRM-ARS
VPL-OfflineRL-IQL
VPL-OnlineRL-ARS
Traj-MaskedDP-ARS
CLS-MaskedDP-ARS
User 1
13.871 ± 7.598
1.491 ± 7.190
19.721 ± 2.142
37.845 ± 6.244
29.024 ± 7.352
User 2
19.369 ± 8.004
35.682 ± 13.034
21.106 ± 1.262
31.247 ± 4.934
31.216 ± 1.413
User 3
17.436 ± 6.164
12.407 ± 5.575
22.618 ± 0.453
31.031 ± 3.827
26.740 ± 6.324
User 4
16.140 ± 6.729
14.780 ± 12.437
18.262 ± 1.990
26.708 ± 1.444
27.432 ± 4.787
Average
16.704 ± 1.999
16.090 ± 12.372
20.427 ± 1.616
31.708 ± 4.520
28.603 ± 1.996
Appendix
Table 11: RL Performance on MO-Reacher when evaluated over 100 episodes across 5 seeds reported in terms of mean +/- std. Both our frameworks, Traj-MaskedDP and CLS-MaskedDP achieve higher average RL performance than the baselines, demonstrating improved policy alignment.
Baselines
MaskedDP
SingleRM-ARS
VPL-OfflineRL-IQL
VPL-OnlineRL-ARS
Traj-MaskedDP-ARS
CLS-MaskedDP-ARS
User 1
28.995 ± 14.759
46.603 ± 49.040
8.323 ± 20.652
44.243 ± 31.841
21.670 ± 12.302
User 2
5.452 ± 30.842
-9.016 ± 27.408
20.551 ± 36.566
74.810 ± 70.151
21.670 ± 12.302
User 3
55.512 ± 21.987
65.261 ± 47.616
63.180 ± 16.044
93.514 ± 57.554
60.124 ± 18.740
User 4
56.822 ± 26.341
30.802 ± 9.216
64.996 ± 44.143
82.556 ± 44.696
85.607 ± 12.131
User 5
-388.945 ± 6.111
-390.156 ± 8.367
-388.251 ± 8.060
-347.668 ± 42.936
-383.115 ± 4.540
Appendix
Table 12: RL Performance on MO-Humanoid when evaluated over 100 episodes across 5 seeds reported in terms of mean +/- std. Our framework outperforms all baselines across majority of users and on average too.
Baselines
MaskedDP
SingleRM-IQL
VPL-OfflineRL-IQL
Traj-MaskedDP-IQL
CLS-MaskedDP-IQL
User 1 (Microwave)
0. 548 ± 0.498
0.326 ± 0.469
0.680 ± 0.466
0.516 ± 0.500
User 2 (Kettle)
0.00 ± 0.000
0.400 ± 0.490
0.988 ± 0.109
0.152 ± 0.359
Average
0.274 ± 0.274
0.363 ± 0.037
0.834 ± 0.154
0.334 ± 0.182
Appendix
Table 13: RL Performance on MO-Kitchen-2d when evaluated over 100 episodes across 5 seeds reported in terms of mean +/- std for Task Success Rate. Since Franka-Kitchen is an offline environment, we run only offline RL IQL.
Baselines
MaskedDP
SingleRM-IQL
VPL-OfflineRL-IQL
Traj-MaskedDP-IQL
CLS-MaskedDP-IQL
User 1 (Microwave)
0.342 ± 0.474
0.400 ± 0.490
0.528 ± 0.499
0.702 ± 0.457
User 2 (Kettle)
0.000 ± 0.000
0.002 ± 0.045
0.900 ± 0.300
0.028 ± 0.165
User 3 (Light Switch)
0.200 ± 0.400
0.000 ± 0.000
0.970 ± 0.171
0.00 ± 0.000
Average
0.181 ± 0.140
0.134 ± 0.188
0.799 ± 0.194
0.243 ± 0.325
Appendix
Table 14: RL Performance on MO-Kitchen-3d when evaluated over 100 episodes across 5 seeds reported in terms of mean +/- std for Task Success Rate. Since Franka-Kitchen is an offline environment, we run only offline RL IQL.
Baselines
MaskedDP
SingleRM-IQL
VPL-OfflineRL-IQL
Traj-MaskedDP-IQL
CLS-MaskedDP-IQL
User 1 (Microwave)
0.000 ± 0.000
0.414 ± 0.493
0.526 ± 0.499
0.178 ± 0.383
User 2 (Kettle)
0.000 ± 0.000
0.000 ± 0.000
0.738 ± 0.440
0.004 ± 0.063
User 3 (Light Switch)
0.000 ± 0.000
0.000 ± 0.000
0.998 ± 0.045
0.002 ± 0.045
User 4 (Top Burner)
0.000 ± 0.000
0.000 ± 0.000
0.384 ± 0.486
0.000 ± 0.000
Average
0.000 ± 0.000
0.103 ± 0.179
0.661 ± 0.232
0.046 ± 0.076
Appendix
Table 15: RL Performance on MO-Kitchen-4d when evaluated over 100 episodes across 5 seeds reported in terms of mean +/- std for Task Success Rate. Since Franka-Kitchen is an offline environment, we run only offline RL IQL.
Figure 4: Per User Test Accuracy vs Number of PCA basis eigenvectors calculated per user across 10 seeds for each PCA size with standard deviation plotted as error bars.
Setup
Baselines
MaskedDP
OOD New User
Trained on Users
Eval Metric
VPL
Traj-MaskedDP
CLS-MaskedDP
1
2-3-4
Test
36.000±3.266
100 ± 0.00
100 ± 0.00
RL
22.048 ± 1.975
32.841 ± 3.033
29.787 ± 3.328
2
1-3-4
Test
33.333±0.000
100 ±0.00
100 ±0.00
RL
17.255 ± 2.414
31.249 ± 1.178
21.401 ± 4.460
3
1-2-4
Test
0.000±0.000
100.00±0.00
77.333±3.266
Appendix
Table 16: Out-of-distribution adaptation to new users on MO-Reacher . Results report mean ± std over 5 seeds for test preference accuracy (15 queries) and RL performance (100 evaluation rollouts). Our methods generalize better to unseen users, achieving higher preference accuracy and stronger downstream RL performance than VPL.
Setup
Baselines
MaskedDP
OOD New User
Trained on Users
Eval Metric
VPL
Traj-MaskedDP
CLS-MaskedDP
1
2-3
Test
0.000±0.000
68.000±7.483
74.000±21.541
RL
5.603 ± 3.621
5.389 ± 3.788
5.109 ± 3.490
2
1-3
Test
68.000±9.798
92.000±7.483
90.000±10.954
RL
0.680 ± 2.125
29.836 ± 0.235
29.833 ± 0.242
3
1-2
Test
60.000±16.733
84.000±10.198
70.000±23.664
Appendix
Table 17: Out-of-distribution adaptation to new users on MO-Highway . Results report mean ± std over 5 seeds for test preference accuracy (10 queries) and RL performance (100 evaluation rollouts). Our methods generalize better to unseen users, achieving higher preference accuracy and stronger downstream RL performance than VPL.
Figure 5: Average Test Accuracy vs Number of PCA basis eigenvectors calculated across all users over 10 seeds for each PCA size with standard deviation plotted as error bars.
Figure 6: Per-User Test Time Accuracy vs Number of adaptation queries where each user favors a distinct goal in the environment.
Pluralistic alignment needs to accommodate diverse preferences under limited human feedback. Using AI simulators to label preference comparisons reduces annotation costs, but variation in simulation accuracy across individuals can leave some people's preferences poorly represented in training. We study how to allocate human feedback across people to construct training data for pluralistic alignment, and how this allocation affects the trained policy. To make this allocation explicit and controllable, we define a social welfare objective over individual supervision utilities that measure label quality. Each query's marginal welfare gain depends on its expected supervision improvement, the recipient's current utility, and application-designated priority. Welfare-Aware Preference Acquisition (WAPA) uses auxiliary reference models to estimate query gains and individual utilities, then selects queries by estimated marginal welfare gain while updating recipient utilities. We prove exact optimality of the acquisition algorithm for the estimated welfare objective under a fixed query budget and model predictions. Experiments on six Roleplay collections and four OpinionQA regions demonstrate improved supervision and controllable allocation tradeoffs. Policy training on four Roleplay collections improves preference prediction for both seen and unseen individuals. When prioritizing a designated group and poorly represented individuals, acquiring human labels for 20% of comparisons recovers 75-86% of the average predictive utility gap between policies trained entirely on AI-generated labels and entirely on ground-truth labels.
Aligning robot policies with human preferences is essential for deployment to diverse end users. In per-user alignment approach, preference feedback is often sparse, so learning becomes unstable and vulnerable to human preference noise, and a growing number of individualized policies makes validation difficult before deployment. A single shared policy approach to user alignment avoids this cost but fails to capture heterogeneous preferences and often neglects minority preferences. To address these challenges, we introduce Preference-based REward Clustering (PREC), a novel framework that learns a compact set of policies from binary preference labels provided by diverse users. From a dataset of user trajectories and their preference labels, PREC first sets the labels aside and aggregates trajectories across users to learn a population-level shared trajectory encoder, alleviating limited per-user coverage and avoiding label noise during representation learning. Using this representation, PREC jointly assigns users to preference-coherent clusters and learns a representative reward model per cluster using preference labels, from which a policy is optimized for each cluster. Clustering similar users compensates for the limited number of labels available from each user and mitigates the effect of label noise. At the same time, maintaining a manageable number of reward models reduces the validation burden at deployment. Experiments across diverse simulated locomotion environments show that PREC groups users who label different trajectory subsets into preference-coherent clusters more accurately than baseline methods. Under sparse and noisy feedback, policies trained with PREC improve all three social welfare metrics over an existing single shared-policy user-alignment approach and even outperform per-user alignment approaches.
Taehyung Kim, Gwangmo Lee, Minjun Chang +2
Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea · Georgia Institute of Technology, United States of America · Hyundai Motor Company, Seoul, South Korea
Prevailing alignment methods target a fixed set of preferences and therefore risk forcing value lock-in as societal norms evolve over time. We introduce Adaptive Pluralistic Alignment (APA), a modular pipeline for updating pluralistically aligned AI systems to track evolving values and avoid value lock-in without repeating costly pretraining or large-scale data collection. APA has three stages: (1) learning compact personalized reward models via low-rank reward basis decomposition, (2) using these models as a jury that collectively selects among candidate outputs through social-choice-theoretic voting, and (3) efficiently adapting the jury over time by fitting new annotator weights over the fixed reward bases as values shift. The resulting system is efficient, explainable, steerable, and modular. We implement a proof-of-concept instantiation using simulated historical annotators, demonstrate how jury composition and the choice of voting rule can substantially affect outcomes, and bound value tracking error given a sliding-window jury. We provide full code at https://github.com/RachelFreedman/apa.
Rachel Freedman
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley, USA.