Rectifying Shortcut Behaviors in Preference-based Reward Learning
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Reward modeling and RLHF
Abstract (arXiv)
In reinforcement learning from human feedback, preference-based reward models play a central role in aligning large language models to human-aligned behavior. However, recent studies show that these models are prone to reward hacking and often fail to generalize well due to over-optimization. They achieve high reward scores by exploiting shortcuts, that is, exploiting spurious features (e.g., response verbosity, agreeable tone, or sycophancy) that correlate with human preference labels in the training data rather than genuinely reflecting the intended objectives. In this paper, instead of probing these issues one at a time, we take a broader view of the reward hacking problem as shortcut behaviors and introduce a principled yet flexible approach to mitigate shortcut behaviors in preference-based reward learning. Inspired by the invariant theory in the kernel perspective, we propose Preference-based Reward Invariance for Shortcut Mitigation (PRISM), which learns group-invariant kernels with feature maps in a closed-form learning objective. Experimental results in several benchmarks show that our method consistently improves the accuracy of the reward model on diverse out-of-distribution tasks and reduces the dependency on shortcuts in downstream policy models, establishing a robust framework for preference-based alignment.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Placed in Reward modeling and RLHF, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 52 of its 68 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Oct 2025.
Builds on
52 of 68 references.
Closest ancestors · 16
Same direction, newest first
- 2024RM-Bench: Benchmarking Reward Models of Language Models with Subtlety and Style21 Oct
- 2024RRM: Robust Reward Model Training Mitigates Reward Hacking20 Sep
- 2024Semi-Supervised Reward Modeling via Iterative Self-Training10 Sep
- 2024Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Experts18 Jun
- 2024Regularizing Hidden States Enables Learning Generalizable Reward Model for LLMs14 Jun
- 2024HelpSteer2: Open-source dataset for training top-performing reward models12 Jun
- 2024Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization in Direct Alignment Algorithms5 Jun
- 2024Exploratory Preference Optimization: Harnessing Implicit Q*-Approximation for Sample-Efficient RLHF31 May
- 2024RLHF Workflow: From Reward Modeling to Online RLHF13 May
- 2024RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling20 Mar
- 2024ODIN: Disentangled Reward Mitigates Hacking in RLHF11 Feb
- 2023A Long Way to Go: Investigating Length Correlations in RLHF5 Oct
4 more
- 2023Reward Model Ensembles Help Mitigate Overoptimization4 Oct
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model29 May
- 2022Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization19 Oct
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback12 Apr
Other references · 36
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,856
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,592
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,091
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,492
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,011
- 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,575
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,944
- 2019Invariant Risk Minimizationcited by 1,842
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,614
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 1,018
- 2024SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Rewardcited by 954
- 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 877
24 more
- 2023BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Datasetcited by 853
- 2023UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedbackcited by 398
- 2024Contrastive Preference Optimization: Pushing the Boundaries of LLM Performance in Machine Translationcited by 393
- 2022Last Layer Re-Training is Sufficient for Robustness to Spurious Correlationscited by 380
- 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 340
- 2020Environment Inference for Invariant Learningcited by 306
- 2023Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Followingcited by 297
- 2021Recursively Summarizing Books with Human Feedbackcited by 290
- 2021Understanding Dataset Difficulty with V-Usable Informationcited by 288
- 2021Curriculum Learning: A Surveycited by 257
- 2024Disentangling Length from Quality in Direct Preference Optimizationcited by 195
- 2024Advancing LLM Reasoning Generalists with Preference Treescited by 192
- 2024Sycophancy to Subterfuge: Investigating Reward-Tampering in Large Language Modelscited by 168
- 2023HelpSteer: Multi-attribute Helpfulness Dataset for SteerLMcited by 141
- 2023Change is Hard: A Closer Look at Subpopulation Shiftcited by 120
- 2024OffsetBias: Leveraging Debiased Data for Tuning Evaluatorscited by 94
- 2023On the Foundations of Shortcut Learningcited by 64
- 2023Explore Spurious Correlations at the Concept Level in Language Models for Text Classificationcited by 48
- 2015Learning with Group Invariant Features: A Kernel Perspectivecited by 13
- 2024Learning Robust Classifiers with Self-Guided Spurious Correlation Mitigationcited by 10
- 2024Spuriousness-Aware Meta-Learning for Learning Robust Classifierscited by 7
- 2024Benchmarking Spurious Bias in Few-Shot Image Classifierscited by 6
- 2025ShortcutProbe: Probing Prediction Shortcuts for Learning Robust Modelscited by 5
- 2025Improving Group Robustness on Spurious Correlation via Evidential Alignmentcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 6.
6 papers.
- 2026A Judge Should Know What Changed:Construct Validity for LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluationcited by 3
- 2026Think, then Score: Decoupled Reasoning and Scoring for Video Reward Modelingcited by 2
- 2026A Sober Look at Agentic Misalignment in Automated Workflowscited by 1
- 2026Disentangling Deception and Hallucination Failures in LLMscited by 0
- 2026Style over Substance: A Shortcut Audit of Emotion-Description Preference Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026What do Reward Models Memorize?cited by 0
- 2026A Judge Should Know What Changed:Construct Validity for LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation25 Aug 2026
- 2026What do Reward Models Memorize?27 Jul 2026
- 2026Style over Substance: A Shortcut Audit of Emotion-Description Preference Evaluation20 Jul 2026
- 2026A Sober Look at Agentic Misalignment in Automated Workflows22 May 2026
- 2026Think, then Score: Decoupled Reasoning and Scoring for Video Reward Modeling7 May 2026
- 2026Disentangling Deception and Hallucination Failures in LLMs16 Feb 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Activation Reward Models for Few-Shot Model Alignment
- 2025Capturing Individual Human Preferences with Reward Features
- 2024Pragmatic Feature Preferences: Learning Reward-Relevant Preferences from Human Input
- 2023Tool-Augmented Reward Modeling
- 2026In-Context Reward Adaptation for Robust Preference Modeling
- 2024Towards Understanding the Influence of Reward Margin on Preference Model Performance
- 2025Reward Shaping to Mitigate Reward Hacking in RLHF
- 2025Debiasing Reward Models by Representation Learning with Guarantees