PREFINE: Preference-Based Implicit Reward and Cost Fine-Tuning for Safety Alignment
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks
also in 2 more
Abstract (arXiv)
We address the problem of making a pre-trained reinforcement learning (RL) policy safety-aware by incorporating cost constraints without retraining it from scratch. While costs could be numerically encoded, we assume a more general setting is when costs are provided as preferences. Given a reward-optimized policy and a small dataset of preferred (low-cost) and dispreferred (high-cost) trajectories, our goal is to fine-tune the policy to generate low-cost behaviors while retaining high rewards. Unlike standard RLHF in language models, where preferences are defined over responses to the same prompt, our setting involves trajectory-level preferences in continuous control environments. We introduce PREFINE: Preference-based Implicit Reward and Cost Fine-Tuning for Safety Alignment which is a preference-based fine-tuning method that adapts Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), which is now widely used for LLM fine-tuning, to the sequential decision making setting. PREFINE constructs policy-sampled counterfactual trajectories to establish meaningful preference contrasts and jointly optimizes for reward retention and safety alignment. Empirically, PREFINE reduces constraint violations and catastrophic failures by over 60% while maintaining original reward behavior. PREFINE produces policies that achieve low-cost, high-reward performance with significantly improved data and computational efficiency compared to full offline RL or imitation learning, bridging preference alignment and safe policy adaptation in continuous domains.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 14 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2026.
Builds on
14 of 26 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 13
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
- 2017Constrained Policy Optimizationcited by 983
- 2021DExperts: Decoding-Time Controlled Text Generation with Experts and Anti-Expertscited by 441
- 2020Responsive Safety in Reinforcement Learning by PID Lagrangian Methodscited by 316
- 2019Imitation Learning via Off-Policy Distribution Matchingcited by 183
- 2023Safety-Gymnasium: A Unified Safe Reinforcement Learning Benchmarkcited by 143
- 2024Provably Mitigating Overoptimization in RLHF: Your SFT Loss is Implicitly an Adversarial Regularizercited by 109
- 2021Constraints Penalized Q-learning for Safe Offline Reinforcement Learningcited by 91
- 2022Constrained Variational Policy Optimization for Safe Reinforcement Learningcited by 71
- 2024Offline Safe Reinforcement Learning Using Trajectory Classificationcited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Offline Safe Policy Optimization From Heterogeneous Feedback
- 2024Enhancing Safety in Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback via Rectified Policy Optimization
- 2025Efficient Safety Alignment of Large Language Models via Preference Re-ranking and Representation-based Reward Modeling
- 2025Safety Modulation: Enhancing Safety in Reinforcement Learning through Cost-Modulated Rewards
- 2026BSO: Safety Alignment Is Density Ratio Matching
- 2026CompassDPO: Dynamics-Controlled Direct Preference Optimization for Robust Safety Alignment
- 2026Improving Safety Alignment via Balanced Direct Preference Optimization
- 2025Mitigating the Safety Alignment Tax with Null-Space Constrained Policy Optimization