Differentially Private Sparse Reward Estimation with Preference Feedback
Authors: Meng Ding, Mingxi Lei, Jie Zhang, Jinyan Liu, Di Wang
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA · ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland · Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China · King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia
Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) has become a central paradigm for aligning Large Language Models with human values. However, the reliance on sensitive preference data necessitates rigorous differential privacy (DP) guarantees to prevent user information leakage. Existing private alignment methods typically assume dense reward parameterizations, resulting in estimation error bounds that scale polynomially with the ambient {model size d}. Such dependence is prohibitive in modern {overparameterized models} where d is vast. In this work, we study Private Sparse RLHF problem to address this limitation, assuming that human preferences (reward model) are governed by a subset of s∗≪d relevant features. We provide the first comprehensive theoretical framework for differentially private sparse reward estimation from pairwise preference feedback under the Bradley-Terry-Luce model, and introduce efficient algorithms for both Sample-DP and Label-DP settings. Theoretically, under the squared ℓ2 parameter estimation error, we establish upper bounds of O(s∗/n+s∗2/n2ε2) for (ε,δ)-Sample-DP and O(s∗/n+s∗/nε2) for ε-Label-DP based on randomized response, where n is the training data size. For the lower bounds, we show that the Sample-DP rate is nearly optimal, and that the guarantee for our Label-DP method cannot be further improved within the randomized-response framework. We also provide a general lower bound for the problem with Label-DP. Empirically, our framework demonstrates superior efficacy over dense baselines across sentiment generation and safety alignment benchmarks, offering a significantly more favorable privacy-utility trade-off.
Figures & tables
Sample-DP
Label-DP
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Sparse ( Ours )
✓
O(ns∗+n2ε2(s∗)2)
Ω(ns∗+n2ε2(s∗)2)
Sparse ( Ours )
✓
O(ns∗+nε2s∗)
Ω(ns∗+nε2s∗)†
Ω(ns∗+n2ε2s∗)‡
Non-Sparse [ 15 ]
✓
✓
O(nd2+n2ε2d3)\lx@sectionsign
Ω(nd+n2ε2d)\lx@paragraphsign
Table 1: Estimation error rates for private RLHF in non-sparse and sparse settings with error metric ∥⋅∥22 . Here d is the ambient dimension, s∗ is the sparsity level, n is the sample size, and (ε,δ) are the privacy parameters. † indicates that the lower bound is for the randomized-response mechanism, and ‡ denotes a general central Label-DP lower bound for arbitrary Label-DP mechanisms. \lx@sectionsign denotes a best-case upper bound and \lx@paragraphsign indicates lower bound only for Label-DP.
θt+1←ΠB(Peeling(θt+21,s,ε,δ,mη)),
Algorithm 1 Sample-DP-IHT
Figure 1: IMDb Sentiment Generation with Llama-7B under different privacy budgets ( ε ).
Figure 4
DP-IHT
RR-IHT
DP-SGD
RR
ε = 2
2.37
2.44
1.98
2.12
ε = 8
2.87
2.88
2.26
2.20
Table 2: Performance comparison under different privacy budgets. Higher is better.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Gemma-3-1B
Llama-2-7B
Batch Size
64
64
Mini-batch Size
64
64
Learning Rate
1e-5
1e-5
Optimizer
RMSProp
RMSProp
KL Penalty Coefficient
0.15
0.15
LoRA Rank
16
16
Appendix
Table 3: PPO parameter settings for Gemma-3-1B and Llama-2-7B.
Figure 7
Privacy budget
Non-private
DP-IHT
RR-IHT
DP-SGD
RR
ε=2
3.07
2.37
2.44
1.98
2.12
ε=8
3.07
2.87
2.88
2.26
2.20
Appendix
Table 4: Sentiment-generation policy scores with a non-private reference. Higher is better. The same non-private reference is shown in both rows.
Method
Mean loss/NLL ↓
Loss std.
Accuracy ↑
DP-SGD
0.5154
0.0090
0.8302
RR
0.4944
0.0012
0.8568
DP-IHT
0.3316
0.0008
0.8583
RR-IHT
0.3209
0.0006
0.8646
Non-private
0.3181
0.0008
0.8650
Appendix
Table 5: Direct reward-model evaluation reported in the rebuttal. Lower mean loss/NLL and higher held-out preference accuracy are better.
10−2
10−3
10−4
Method
Loss
Acc.
Loss
Acc.
Loss
Acc.
DP-SGD
0.5378
0.8398
0.5328
0.8336
0.5154
0.8302
RR
0.5188
0.8476
0.5247
0.8437
0.4944
0.8568
DP-IHT
0.3654
0.8425
0.3316
0.8583
0.3587
0.8554
RR-IHT
0.3209
0.8646
0.3384
0.8596
0.3328
0.8621
Appendix
Table 6: Reward-model learning-rate sweep. Loss is lower-is-better and preference accuracy (Acc.) is higher-is-better.
Learning rate
1×10−5
2×10−5
4×10−5
Label-DP RR-IHT
57%
57%
59%
Sample-DP IHT
55%
53%
57%
RR
51%
55%
53%
DP-SGD
47%
45%
41%
Appendix
Table 7: PPO learning-rate sweep for safety alignment with Gemma-3-1B ( ε=8 ), as reported in the rebuttal. Higher win rate is better. The comparison policy and evaluation sample size remain to be specified.