Multi-reward reinforcement learning offers a promising framework for aligning large language models (LLMs) with diverse objectives, but conflicting reward signals can induce ambiguous update directions and hinder stable optimization. Existing approaches address such conflicts through reward reweighting, gradient coordination, or rollout filtering, yet they primarily operate on per-response or group-level optimization signals and underexploit relational information among sampled responses. As a result, conflict-filtered rollouts may still contain useful supervision that is discarded during training. We propose Group Pareto-Dominance Policy Optimization (GPDPO), a multi-reward policy optimization method that recovers pairwise supervision from conflict-filtered rollouts. GPDPO identifies Pareto-dominance relations among sampled responses and converts them into auxiliary preference signals, which are jointly optimized with the original policy objective. This enables more effective reuse of existing rollouts without additional sampling or reward evaluation. Experiments on API-Bank across multiple model scales and reward configurations show that GPDPO consistently outperforms competitive multi-reward optimization baselines. Further analysis demonstrates that GPDPO reduces both group-relative and pairwise reward conflicts, supporting the effectiveness of exploiting relational supervision for multi-reward alignment. Code will be released.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Different strategies for utilizing conflicting responses in multi-reward policy optimization. GDPO retains conflicting responses in policy updates, whereas GD 2 PO masks them to avoid ambiguous optimization signals. GPDPO preserves conflict-aware masking while recovering pairwise supervision from Pareto-dominance relations, i.e., one response is no worse than another on all reward dimensions and strictly better on at least one.
Figure 2: Conflict filtering is sensitive to the reference group and can discard useful learning signals. (a,b) Conflict-label flip rates for fixed responses under different group sizes and different peers at the same group size, respectively. (c) Percentage of filtered responses that match the ground-truth. (d) Consistent comparison relations between filtered responses and their peers. “Both” denotes being consistently better than some peers and consistently worse than others.
Figure 3: Overview of GPDPO. Based on conflict filtering, we identify Pareto dominance relations within filtered responses and leverage them to construct preference loss. The resulting preference loss is combined with the standard multi-reward policy-gradient objective for policy optimization.
Method
Level 1 Acc.
Level 2 Acc.
Level 3 Acc.
Correct Acc.
Length Rew.
Overall
Qwen3-1.7B
GRPO ( Shao et al., 2024 )
66.17
53.73
46.56
60.47
0.9643
1.569
GDPO ( Liu et al., 2026b )
66.67
61.19
43.51
60.97
0.9875
1.597
GD 2 PO ( Liu et al., 2026a )
69.17
61.19
42.75
62.48
0.9793
1.604
GPDPO
70.93
61.19
48.85
64.99
0.9812
1.631
Qwen3-4B
Table 1: Results on API-Bank under the two-reward (2R) setting. Accuracy metrics are reported as percentages. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively.
Method
Level 1 Acc.
Level 2 Acc.
Level 3 Acc.
Correct Acc.
Format Acc.
Length Rew.
Overall
Qwen3-1.7B
GRPO ( Shao et al., 2024 )
65.91
62.69
39.69
59.80
98.99
0.9519
2.540
GDPO ( Liu et al., 2026b )
68.92
53.73
41.22
61.14
100.00
0.9608
2.572
GD 2 PO ( Liu et al., 2026a )
68.92
59.70
44.27
62.48
100.00
0.9756
2.600
GPDPO
70.43
61.19
42.75
63.32
99.66
0.9760
2.606
Qwen3-4B
Table 2: Results on API-Bank under the three-reward (3R) setting. Accuracy metrics are reported as percentages. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively.
Figure 4: Training dynamics of Qwen3-1.7B under the three-reward (3R) setting.
Figure 5: Conflict dynamics on Qwen3-1.7B under 3R setting. Left: pairwise preference conflict rate over all non-tied within-group response pairs, including retained–retained pairs. Right: GD 2 PO conflict rate over valid rollouts.
Method
Level 1 Acc.
Level 2 Acc.
Level 3 Acc.
Correct Acc.
Length Rew.
GD 2 PO
69.17
61.19
42.75
62.48
0.9793
GPDPO (Strict Pareto Dominance)
68.67
62.69
48.09
63.48
0.9650
GPDPO (Scalarized Reward Ordering)
68.42
49.25
48.09
61.81
0.9675
GPDPO (Fixed Reference Model)
71.18
58.21
39.69
62.81
0.9767
GPDPO (Pareto-Guided Advantage Adjustment)
70.68
61.19
44.27
63.82
0.9762
GPDPO (Full)
70.93
61.19
48.85
64.99
0.9812
Table 3: Ablations on Qwen3-1.7B with 2R setting. Best Correct Acc. and Length Rew. are bold.
Figure 6: Sensitivity of λ on Qwen3-1.7B under 2R setting.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Setting
Value
Training hardware
One node, 4× NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada (48 GB each)
Base models
Qwen3-1.7B, Qwen3-4B
Training data
RLLA-4K, 3,920 records before prompt filtering
Max prompt / response length
2,048 / 1,024 tokens
Train batch / mini-batch size
512 / 128 prompts
Rollout group size G
4 (2,048 responses per rollout step)
Appendix
Table 4: Training settings for GPDPO. Batch sizes are measured in prompts.
Setting
Value
Evaluation hardware
One NVIDIA RTX A6000 (48 GB)
Dataset
Processed API-Bank, 597 questions
Level 1 / 2 / 3 questions
399 / 67 / 131
Decoding
Greedy, one response per question
Temperature / top- p
0.0 / 1.0
Max new tokens / total sequence length
4,096 / 4,096
Appendix
Table 5: Evaluation settings for the selected step-200 checkpoints.
Panel
Measurement
2R: count (%)
3R: count (%)
(a)
Expansion, 4→64 : changed
10,608 (16.19)
17,756 (27.09)
Expansion, 4→64 : unchanged
54,928 (83.81)
47,780 (72.91)
(b)
Peer replacement, G=4 : disagreement
5,999 (9.15)
10,434 (15.92)
Peer replacement, G=16 : disagreement
6,312 (9.63)
8,119 (12.39)
Peer replacement, G=64 : disagreement
3,561 (5.43)
3,994 (6.09)
(c)
GT tool-call structure matches
8,345 (23.22)
16,039 (27.33)
Appendix
Table 6: Detailed results for Figure 2 . Entries report count (percentage). The denominator is 65,536 paired label comparisons per setting for (a,b), and 35,937 / 58,689 filtered responses under 2R / 3R for (c,d). The four categories in (d) partition the filtered set.
Measurement
GD 2 PO
GPDPO ( λ=0.1 )
All-dimension strict-improvement edges
6,374
6,338
Pareto-dominance edges
52,421
52,631
Edges added by allowing ties
46,047 (87.84%)
46,293 (87.96%)
Tied correctness, improved length
29,229
29,578
Tied length, improved correctness
16,818
16,715
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison-edge statistics under 2R. All edge counts involve at least one filtered response. Percentages for added edges use the Pareto-edge count as the denominator.
Multi-objective language model alignment studies how to balance competing goals such as helpfulness, safety, truthfulness, fairness, and personalization.
As LLMs advance, post-training reinforcement learning (RL) increasingly relies on multi-dimensional rewards to cultivate comprehensive capabilities. This shift demands new algorithms capable of optimizing diverse and potentially competing objectives simultaneously. To address this, existing methods such as Group reward-Decoupled Policy Optimization (GDPO) decompose the overall score into independent reward groups, then compute the RL loss separately within each group. However, this strategy still encounters multi-reward conflicts: a single rollout can yield positive advantages on certain reward dimensions but negative ones on others, causing opposing signals to cancel each other out during aggregation, further hindering RL training efficiency. Inspired by Dynamic sAmpling Policy Optimization (DAPO), which improves RL training efficiency by filtering out ineffective rollouts with near-zero advantages, we propose Group-Dynamic reward-Decoupled Policy Optimization (GD2PO). Specifically, GD2PO employs a conflict-aware filtering mechanism to mask out rollouts suffering from severe reward-wise disagreement. By preventing conflicting signals from canceling each other out, this masking strategy preserves and enhances the magnitude of effective RL advantages, thereby significantly accelerating learning efficiency. Furthermore, we introduce query-level reweighting to dynamically adjust the update intensity of each query based on its overall reward consensus. Experiments on various multi-reward scenarios, including tool calling and human preference alignment, demonstrate that GD2PO consistently and significantly outperforms existing baselines. The code is available at https://github.com/Qwen-Applications/GD2PO.
Haotian Liu, Yihao Liu, Jingwei Ni +11
Alibaba · Renmin University of China · Peking University +3
Modern large language models (LLMs) are expected not just to answer correctly, but to adapt their behavior to different human values and use cases. As a result, multi-reward reinforcement learning (RL) has become an increasingly important problem for LLMs, where each reward captures a different aspect of desired behavior. However, optimizing with multiple rewards suffers from a more severe alignment tax issue, where different optimization objectives can trade off or even conflict with each other, leading to unstable and inefficient post-training. In this work, we propose PRISM, a new multi-reward RL framework built upon the idea of policy-space decomposition and composition. Instead of compositing different rewards, PRISM optimizes a set of standalone positive policies and a global negative policy. This alleviates the potential conflict during multi-reward policy optimization, while enabling controllability during inference by flexible policy composition. Experiments on scientific reasoning, tool-use reasoning, and helpfulness-safety alignment show that PRISM consistently outperforms existing multi-reward RL baselines, with extra controllability for inference-time preference control.
Ruiming Liang, Yi Zhong, Yizhen Yuan +6
1Fundation Model Research Center, CASIA · School of Artificial Intelligence, UCAS · Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR), Tsinghua University +1
We aim to improve model performance in multi-reward reinforcement learning training process. Existing Group reward-Decoupled Normalization Policy Optimization (GDPO) has mitigated the issue of reward signals masking one another during direct scalarization by normalizing each reward dimension separately before aggregation. However, our experiments show that GDPO still struggles to balance reward signals with different granularities. Specifically, in some particular training tasks, the model may receive a dense reward that assigns fine-grained scores ranging from 0.1 to 1.0, together with a sparse reward that provides only binary feedback of either 0 or 1. In such cases, we find that the sparse reward may provide an insufficient optimization signal, preventing its corresponding capability from being effectively reinforced. Therefore, how can we strengthen the optimization signal from the sparse reward without sacrificing the capability already learned from the fine-grained reward? To overcome this limitation, we propose Specialize-and-Merge Online Policy Distillation (SMOPD), a two-stage training method for multi-reward optimization. Stage1-Specialize: SMOPD first employs reward-priority configurations to train multiple reward-specialized teachers, allowing each reward to be learned under conditions where its signal can effectively drive optimization. Stage2-Merge: SMOPD then utilizes online policy distillation to combine the reward-specialized capabilities of these teachers into a single student policy, while maintaining balanced task-level optimization. To validate our method, we conduct experiments on two multi-reward settings: complementary rewards(tool-calling accuracy and format) and conflicting rewards (helpful and harmless rewards). Based on above settings, SMOPD outperforms GDPO across 1.5B, 3B and 7B backbones.
Wen Wang, Jiahua Bao, Tu Yongsiqi +8
Qwen Large Model Application Team, Alibaba · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences