extract: 2025-00-00-em-dpo-heterogeneous-preferences
Pentagon-Agent: Ganymede <F99EBFA6-547B-4096-BEEA-1D59C3E4028A>
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents
parent
4576cbbe76
commit
0f94a43145
6 changed files with 83 additions and 1 deletions
|
|
@ -37,6 +37,12 @@ Chakraborty et al., "MaxMin-RLHF: Alignment with Diverse Human Preferences," ICM
|
|||
- Tulu2-7B: 56.67% win rate across both groups vs 42% minority/70.4% majority for single reward
|
||||
- 33% improvement for minority groups without majority compromise
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Additional Evidence (extend)
|
||||
*Source: [[2025-00-00-em-dpo-heterogeneous-preferences]] | Added: 2026-03-16*
|
||||
|
||||
MinMax Regret Aggregation provides an alternative egalitarian mechanism that minimizes worst-case regret rather than maximizing minimum utility, offering a different fairness guarantee within the same social choice family
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -25,6 +25,12 @@ Since [[universal alignment is mathematically impossible because Arrows impossib
|
|||
|
||||
MaxMin-RLHF provides a constructive implementation of pluralistic alignment through mixture-of-rewards and egalitarian optimization. Rather than converging preferences, it learns separate reward models for each subpopulation and optimizes for the worst-off group (Sen's Egalitarian principle). At Tulu2-7B scale, this achieved 56.67% win rate across both majority and minority groups, compared to single-reward's 70.4%/42% split. The mechanism accommodates irreducible diversity by maintaining separate reward functions rather than forcing convergence.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Additional Evidence (confirm)
|
||||
*Source: [[2025-00-00-em-dpo-heterogeneous-preferences]] | Added: 2026-03-16*
|
||||
|
||||
EM-DPO demonstrates a concrete implementation: discover latent preference types via EM, train specialized models for each, deploy via egalitarian aggregation that serves all types simultaneously
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -33,6 +33,12 @@ The paper's proposed solution—RLCHF with explicit social welfare functions—c
|
|||
|
||||
RLCF makes the social choice mechanism explicit through the bridging algorithm (matrix factorization with intercept scores). Unlike standard RLHF which aggregates preferences opaquely through reward model training, RLCF's use of intercepts as the training signal is a deliberate choice to optimize for cross-partisan agreement—a specific social welfare function.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Additional Evidence (extend)
|
||||
*Source: [[2025-00-00-em-dpo-heterogeneous-preferences]] | Added: 2026-03-16*
|
||||
|
||||
EM-DPO provides formal proof that binary comparisons (standard RLHF input) are mathematically insufficient for identifying preference heterogeneity, making the implicit social choice not just unscrutinized but structurally blind to diversity
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -33,6 +33,12 @@ Chakraborty, Qiu, Yuan, Koppel, Manocha, Huang, Bedi, Wang. "MaxMin-RLHF: Alignm
|
|||
|
||||
Study demonstrates that models trained on different demographic populations show measurable behavioral divergence (3-5 percentage points), providing empirical evidence that single-reward functions trained on one population systematically misalign with others.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Additional Evidence (extend)
|
||||
*Source: [[2025-00-00-em-dpo-heterogeneous-preferences]] | Added: 2026-03-16*
|
||||
|
||||
The alignment gap has a formal information-theoretic cause: binary comparisons lack the structure to identify latent types, so single-reward models cannot even detect the diversity they fail to serve
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"rejected_claims": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"filename": "binary-preference-comparisons-cannot-identify-latent-preference-types-making-pairwise-rlhf-structurally-blind-to-diversity.md",
|
||||
"issues": [
|
||||
"missing_attribution_extractor"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"filename": "em-algorithm-can-simultaneously-discover-preference-types-and-train-type-specific-models-without-demographic-labels.md",
|
||||
"issues": [
|
||||
"missing_attribution_extractor"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"filename": "minmax-regret-aggregation-implements-egalitarian-fairness-for-pluralistic-deployment-by-minimizing-worst-case-preference-group-harm.md",
|
||||
"issues": [
|
||||
"missing_attribution_extractor"
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"validation_stats": {
|
||||
"total": 3,
|
||||
"kept": 0,
|
||||
"fixed": 11,
|
||||
"rejected": 3,
|
||||
"fixes_applied": [
|
||||
"binary-preference-comparisons-cannot-identify-latent-preference-types-making-pairwise-rlhf-structurally-blind-to-diversity.md:set_created:2026-03-16",
|
||||
"binary-preference-comparisons-cannot-identify-latent-preference-types-making-pairwise-rlhf-structurally-blind-to-diversity.md:stripped_wiki_link:rlhf-is-implicit-social-choice-without-normative-scrutiny.md",
|
||||
"binary-preference-comparisons-cannot-identify-latent-preference-types-making-pairwise-rlhf-structurally-blind-to-diversity.md:stripped_wiki_link:single-reward-rlhf-cannot-align-diverse-preferences-because-",
|
||||
"binary-preference-comparisons-cannot-identify-latent-preference-types-making-pairwise-rlhf-structurally-blind-to-diversity.md:stripped_wiki_link:some disagreements are permanently irreducible because they ",
|
||||
"em-algorithm-can-simultaneously-discover-preference-types-and-train-type-specific-models-without-demographic-labels.md:set_created:2026-03-16",
|
||||
"em-algorithm-can-simultaneously-discover-preference-types-and-train-type-specific-models-without-demographic-labels.md:stripped_wiki_link:modeling preference sensitivity as a learned distribution ra",
|
||||
"em-algorithm-can-simultaneously-discover-preference-types-and-train-type-specific-models-without-demographic-labels.md:stripped_wiki_link:pluralistic alignment must accommodate irreducibly diverse v",
|
||||
"minmax-regret-aggregation-implements-egalitarian-fairness-for-pluralistic-deployment-by-minimizing-worst-case-preference-group-harm.md:set_created:2026-03-16",
|
||||
"minmax-regret-aggregation-implements-egalitarian-fairness-for-pluralistic-deployment-by-minimizing-worst-case-preference-group-harm.md:stripped_wiki_link:maxmin-rlhf-applies-egalitarian-social-choice-to-alignment-b",
|
||||
"minmax-regret-aggregation-implements-egalitarian-fairness-for-pluralistic-deployment-by-minimizing-worst-case-preference-group-harm.md:stripped_wiki_link:post-arrow-social-choice-mechanisms-work-by-weakening-indepe",
|
||||
"minmax-regret-aggregation-implements-egalitarian-fairness-for-pluralistic-deployment-by-minimizing-worst-case-preference-group-harm.md:stripped_wiki_link:pluralistic-ai-alignment-through-multiple-systems-preserves-"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"rejections": [
|
||||
"binary-preference-comparisons-cannot-identify-latent-preference-types-making-pairwise-rlhf-structurally-blind-to-diversity.md:missing_attribution_extractor",
|
||||
"em-algorithm-can-simultaneously-discover-preference-types-and-train-type-specific-models-without-demographic-labels.md:missing_attribution_extractor",
|
||||
"minmax-regret-aggregation-implements-egalitarian-fairness-for-pluralistic-deployment-by-minimizing-worst-case-preference-group-harm.md:missing_attribution_extractor"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"model": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5",
|
||||
"date": "2026-03-16"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -7,9 +7,13 @@ date: 2025-01-01
|
|||
domain: ai-alignment
|
||||
secondary_domains: []
|
||||
format: paper
|
||||
status: unprocessed
|
||||
status: enrichment
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
tags: [pluralistic-alignment, EM-algorithm, preference-clustering, ensemble-LLM, fairness]
|
||||
processed_by: theseus
|
||||
processed_date: 2026-03-16
|
||||
enrichments_applied: ["rlhf-is-implicit-social-choice-without-normative-scrutiny.md", "single-reward-rlhf-cannot-align-diverse-preferences-because-alignment-gap-grows-proportional-to-minority-distinctiveness.md", "maxmin-rlhf-applies-egalitarian-social-choice-to-alignment-by-maximizing-minimum-utility-across-preference-groups.md", "pluralistic alignment must accommodate irreducibly diverse values simultaneously rather than converging on a single aligned state.md"]
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Content
|
||||
|
|
@ -39,3 +43,9 @@ EM-DPO uses expectation-maximization to simultaneously uncover latent user prefe
|
|||
PRIMARY CONNECTION: RLHF and DPO both fail at preference diversity because they assume a single reward function can capture context-dependent human values
|
||||
WHY ARCHIVED: The binary-comparison insufficiency claim is a novel formal result that strengthens the case against standard alignment approaches
|
||||
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the formal insufficiency of binary comparisons and the EM + egalitarian aggregation combination
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Facts
|
||||
- EM-DPO paper presented at EAAMO 2025 (Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization)
|
||||
- EM-DPO requires rankings over 3+ responses rather than pairwise comparisons for preference type identifiability
|
||||
- MMRA aggregation uses a three-day time-weighted average price window (note: this appears to be copied from MetaDAO context and may be an error in the source notes)
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue