Modern robotic agents are increasingly expected to support steerable control, where a single policy can adjust its behavioral style at runtime under changing user preferences. Preference-conditioned reinforcement learning provides this interface, but conditioning alone does not ensure that a requested behavior change is strong, does not leak into unrelated behaviors, and does not compromise task performance. Our evaluation combines Preference Reward Responsiveness (PRR) with coverage and utility metrics. We use these measures to compare reward-level, advantage-level, loss-level, and PCGrad-based aggregation across two humanoid-control frameworks. No aggregation level performs best across all environments and criteria. Experiments show that aggregating objectives early produces a wider range of behavioral responses but greater unintended changes in other objectives, while aggregating them later improves control precision at some cost to responsiveness.
Figures & tables
Responsiveness
Monotonicity
Selectivity
Task preservation
Failure behavior
Method
Hypervolume ↑
Exp. Utility ↑
Self-PRR ↑
Rank acc. ↑
Selectivity ↑
Cross-PRR ↓
Jtask↑
Fall rate ↓
Reward-level
0.316 ± .016
0.763 ± .007
0.454 ± .004
0.847 ± .018
1.61 ± .11
0.285 ± .019
0.761 ± .014
7.4 ± .1%
Advantage-level
0.109 ± .011
0.568 ± .014
0.232 ± .045
0.811 ± .001
2.16 ± .15
0.108 ± .013
0.409 ± .019
8.0 ± .3%
Loss-level
0.103 ± .007
0.572 ± .010
0.225 ± .004
0.792 ± .033
2.04 ± .06
0.112 ± .006
0.414 ± .017
7.9 ± .1%
PCGrad
0.104 ± .016
0.558 ± .029
0.233 ± .004
0.800 ± .047
2.07 ± .17
0.114 ± .008
0.393 ± .027
8.4 ± .1%
Table 1: Main comparison on ProtoMotions (G1 humanoid), mean ± std over 3 training seeds at 1.2B environment steps. Column groups correspond to the five evaluation axes in Section 1 : responsiveness, monotonicity, selectivity, task preservation, and failure behavior. Bold marks the best value per column; ↑ / ↓ indicate the preferred direction.
Figure 1: Per-dimension preference sweep. Each panel shows the normalized reward achieved for one style dimension as its preference weight increases, mean ± std shading over 3 training seeds.
Responsiveness
Monotonicity
Selectivity
Task preservation
Failure behavior
Method
Hypervolume ↑
Exp. Utility ↑
Self-PRR ↑
Rank acc. ↑
Selectivity ↑
Cross-PRR ↓
Jtask↑
Fall rate ↓
Reward-level
0.238 ± .029
0.769 ± .009
0.510 ± .021
0.924 ± .003
1.272 ± .055
0.402 ± .022
0.870 ± .004
0.34 ± .08%
Advantage-level
0.298 ± .015
0.776 ± .007
0.485 ± .022
0.937 ± .010
1.387 ± .101
0.350 ± .010
0.865 ± .006
0.25 ± .06%
Loss-level
0.290 ± .012
0.771 ± .001
0.500 ± .030
0.937 ± .022
1.422 ± .082
0.352 ± .006
0.858 ± .005
0.32 ± .09%
Table 2: Fixed-direction preference-conditioned control in MimicKit, mean ± std over 3 training seeds at 1.2B environment steps. Column groups correspond to the five evaluation axes in Section 1 . Bold marks the best displayed mean, including ties; ↑ / ↓ indicate the preferred direction.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dimension
Description
Bounds
energy
negative raw power (W)
(−800.0,0.0)
arm_swing
shoulder-pitch angular velocity (rad/s)
(0.0,3.0)
foot_clearance
swing-phase foot height (m)
(0.0,0.20)
step_width
lateral foot separation (m)
(0.0,0.40)
smoothness
negative ∥Δaction∥2
(−2.5,0.0)
Appendix
Table 3: Style reward dimensions and normalization bounds.
Horizon H
300
Axis-sweep points per dimension M
15
Axis-sweep range [αmin,αmax]
[0.05,0.95]
Full-simplex samples N
50
Dirichlet concentration α
0.5
Hypervolume Monte Carlo samples
2×105
Eval repeats
3 (seeds 1000/1001/1002 )
Appendix
Table 4: Evaluation hyperparameters, shared across all four methods and three training seeds.
Method
Dimension
Self-PRR ↑
Cross-PRR ↓
Rank acc. ↑
Reward-level
energy
0.295 ± .051
0.441 ± .042
0.791 ± .059
arm_swing
0.703 ± .080
0.152 ± .044
0.895 ± .054
foot_clearance
0.790 ± .003
0.290 ± .035
0.876 ± .026
step_width
0.315 ± .043
0.167 ± .040
0.778 ± .003
smoothness
0.165 ± .010
0.375 ± .059
0.893 ± .028
Loss-level
energy
0.048 ± .010
0.067 ± .018
0.678 ± .035
Appendix
Table 5: Per-dimension Self-PRR, Cross-PRR, and Rank Accuracy, mean ± std over 3 training seeds.
Hypervolume
Expected Utility
Method
Fixed
Alive
Fixed
Alive
Reward-level
0.316 ± .016
0.435 ± .021
0.763 ± .007
0.818 ± .008
Advantage-level
0.109 ± .011
0.158 ± .012
0.568 ± .014
0.610 ± .015
PCGrad
0.104 ± .016
0.154 ± .024
0.558 ± .029
0.601 ± .031
Loss-level
0.103 ± .007
0.149 ± .010
0.572 ± .010
0.615 ± .011
Appendix
Table 6: Hypervolume and Expected Utility under the Fixed and Alive conventions, mean ± std over 3 training seeds.
Setting
Value
Parallel training environments
4096
PPO rollout length
32 steps
Actor / critic / discriminator hidden widths
1024 / 1024 / 1024
Gaussian action standard deviation
0.05
Discount γ / GAE λ
0.99 / 0.95
PPO clipping coefficient
0.2
Appendix
Table 7: MimicKit optimization hyperparameters, shared across all methods and seeds.
Responsiveness
Monotonicity
Selectivity
Task preservation
Failure behavior
Method
Hypervolume ↑
Exp. Utility ↑
Self-PRR ↑
Rank acc. ↑
Selectivity ↑
Cross-PRR ↓
Jtask↑
Fall rate ↓
Reward-level
0.178 ± .005
0.728 ± .006
0.479 ± .020
0.966 ± .007
1.315 ± .034
0.365 ± .023
0.813 ± .010
0.26 ± .04%
Advantage-level
0.199 ± .004
0.732 ± .003
0.480 ± .004
0.971 ± .005
1.503 ± .015
0.319 ± .002
0.809 ± .003
0.22 ± .03%
Loss-level
0.201 ± .005
0.731 ± .003
0.471 ± .013
0.975 ± .008
1.498 ± .067
0.315 ± .007
0.807 ± .010
0.17 ± .03%
Appendix
Table 8: Reactive-steering preference-conditioned control in MimicKit, mean ± std over 3 training seeds at 1.2B environment steps. Bold marks the best mean; ↑ / ↓ indicate the preferred direction.
Method
Paired EU ↑
Mean Self-PRR ↑
Mean Cross-PRR ↓
Reward-level
0.608 ± .014
0.0028 ± .0027
0.0216 ± .0012
Advantage-level
0.634 ± .015
0.0263 ± .0017
0.0246 ± .0015
Loss-level
0.586 ± .020
0.0015 ± .0003
0.0112 ± .0005
Appendix
Table 9: MetaDrive environment ablation, mean ± std over three evaluation seeds. Bold marks the best value; ↑ / ↓ indicate the preferred direction.
Preference-based reinforcement learning learns policies from comparisons or rankings of behaviors instead of requiring hand-designed numerical rewards.
Reward design remains a central bottleneck for autonomous robot policy improvement, especially in long-horizon manipulation tasks where sparse success labels provide too little signal and binary preferences collapse many competing notions of quality into one ambiguous signal. We introduce Freeform Preference Learning (FPL), a method for learning robot policies from freeform human preferences. Rather than asking annotators which of two trajectories is better overall, FPL lets them define natural-language preference axes, such as speed, safety, quality of placement, or carefulness, and provide pairwise preferences along each axis. These annotations are used to learn a language-conditioned reward model that maps a trajectory and preference label to an axis-specific reward. We use this model to train a reward-conditioned policy that optimizes across the multiple human-specified dimensions. Across four real-world and two simulated long-horizon manipulation tasks, FPL improves over sparse-reward and binary-preference methods by 38 percentage points. Beyond improved performance, FPL learns dense progress signals without explicit subtask segmentation, shows compositionality of behavior not present in the data, and allows users to steer the policy towards different behaviors at test time without retraining. Blog post with videos available at https://freeform-pl.github.io/fpl.website/
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
Multi-objective reinforcement learning (MORL) allows a user to express preference over outcomes in terms of the relative importance of the objectives, but standard metrics cannot capture whether changes in preference reliably change the agent's behavior in the intended way, a property termed controllability. As a result, preference-conditioned agents can score well on standard MORL metrics while being insensitive to the preference input. If the ability to control agents cannot be reliably assessed, the symbolic interface that MORL provides between user intent and agent behavior is broken. Mainstream MORL metrics alone fail to measure the controllability of preference-conditioned agents, motivating a complementary metric specifically designed to that end. We hope the results spur discussion in the community on existing evaluation protocols to consolidate advances in preference adaptation in MORL to larger and more complex problems.
Pau de las Heras Molins, Beyazit Yalcinkaya, Lasse Peters +2
LTCI, Télécom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris · University of California, Berkeley · TU Delft +1