# A Regret Minimization Framework on Preference Learning in Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09124 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.09124/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reward modeling and RLHF, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 28 of its 39 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Reward modeling and RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/reward-modeling-and-rlhf/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 28 of 28)

- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14858/) (2022)
- [Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12122/) (2024)
- [Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15124/) (2024)
- [SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14734/) (2024)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12036/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [Reinforcement Learning with Deep Energy-Based Policies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08165/) (2017)
- [UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01377/) (2023)
- [Why Language Models Hallucinate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.04664/) (2025)
- [Token-level Direct Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.11999/) (2024)
- [Provably Mitigating Overoptimization in RLHF: Your SFT Loss is Implicitly an Adversarial Regularizer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.16436/) (2024)
- [Contrastive Preference Learning: Learning from Human Feedback without RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13639/) (2023)
- [Quantifying Differences in Reward Functions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.13900/) (2020)
- [Direct Preference-based Policy Optimization without Reward Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.12842/) (2023)
- [Qsharp: Provably Optimal Distributional RL for LLM Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.20548/) (2025)
- [The f-Divergence Reinforcement Learning Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.11867/) (2021)
- [Policy-labeled Preference Learning: Is Preference Enough for RLHF?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.06273/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has enabled progress on reasoning-intensive tasks by relying on task-specific verifiers that provide automated correctness signals. However, many realistic language tasks are difficult to equip with reliable verifiers, motivating a growing reliance on reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). In this setting, we argue that a closer examination of how human feedback should be interpreted is essential. We introduce Regret-based Preference Optimization (RePO), which reframes RLHF through textitregret minimization rather than reward maximization. Human preferences are often shaped by textitprospective anticipation of outcomes and textitcounterfactual comparisons to alternative behaviors, rather than by immediate, outcome-independent utility. RePO captures this structure by modeling preferences as behavior-conditioned assessments of relative suboptimality. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks and human preference datasets demonstrate consistent performance gains, indicating that RePO is an effective and human-aligned approach for training large language models.