Design Considerations in Offline Preference-based RL

Alekh Agarwal, Christoph Dann, Teodor V. Marinov
2/8/2025
cs.LGcs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Offline algorithms for Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences (RLHF), which use only a fixed dataset of sampled responses given an input, and preference feedback among these responses, have gained increasing prominence in the literature on aligning language models. In this paper, we study how the different design choices made in methods such as DPO, IPO, SLiC and many variants influence the quality of the learned policy, from a theoretical perspective. Our treatment yields insights into the choices of loss function, the policy which is used to normalize log-likelihoods, and also the role of the data sampling policy. Notably, our results do not rely on the standard reparameterization-style arguments used to motivate some of the algorithms in this family, which allows us to give a unified treatment to a broad class of methods. We also conduct a small empirical study to verify some of the theoretical findings on a standard summarization benchmark.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{agarwal2025design,
  title  = {Design Considerations in Offline Preference-based RL},
  author = {Alekh Agarwal and Christoph Dann and Teodor V. Marinov},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2502.06861},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06861v1},
  journal = {ICML 2025 2025}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2502.06861.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2502.06861)

Discussion