# Inference-Time Nash Alignment

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.08082 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.08082/

## 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 36 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Sep 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, 30 of 36)

- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [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)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.09332/) (2021)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12036/) (2023)
- [LLM-Blender: Ensembling Large Language Models with Pairwise Ranking and Generative Fusion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.02561/) (2023)
- [RLHF Workflow: From Reward Modeling to Online RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.07863/) (2024)
- [Self-Play Preference Optimization for Language Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.00675/) (2024)
- [Nash Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.00886/) (2023)
- [Optimization, Learning, and Games with Predictable Sequences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1311.1869/) (2013)
- [Direct Nash Optimization: Teaching Language Models to Self-Improve with General Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.03715/) (2024)
- [HelpSteer2-Preference: Complementing Ratings with Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.01257/) (2024)
- [BoNBoN Alignment for Large Language Models and the Sweetness of Best-of-n Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.00832/) (2024)
- [ARGS: Alignment as Reward-Guided Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01694/) (2024)
- [Is Best-of-N the Best of Them? Coverage, Scaling, and Optimality in Inference-Time Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.21878/) (2025)
- [Decoding-Time Language Model Alignment with Multiple Objectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18853/) (2024)
- [Human Alignment of Large Language Models through Online Preference Optimisation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.08635/) (2024)
- [Inference-Aware Fine-Tuning for Best-of-N Sampling in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15287/) (2024)
- [PAD: Personalized Alignment of LLMs at Decoding-Time](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04070/) (2024)
- [Iterative Nash Policy Optimization: Aligning LLMs with General Preferences via No-Regret Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.00617/) (2024)
- [Pessimistic Minimax Value Iteration: Provably Efficient Equilibrium Learning from Offline Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.07511/) (2022)
- [Improving LLM General Preference Alignment via Optimistic Online Mirror Descent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.16852/) (2025)
- [Distortion of AI Alignment: Does Preference Optimization Optimize for Preferences?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23749/) (2025)
- [Direct Alignment with Heterogeneous Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.16320/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Preference-based fine-tuning methods such as RLHF and DPO require substantial compute and large preference datasets. They also need direct access to the model parameters which are not provided by many state-of-the art models. Inference-time alignment offers a cost-effective alternative without updating model parameters. However, existing inference-time methods rely on a scalar reward model derived under a Bradley-Terry assumption, which cannot represent general preferences. Following recent work on fine-tuning with generalized preferences, in this work, we initiate the study of inference-time alignment under general preferences. We formulate the problem as obtaining a Nash equilibrium of a two-player zero-sum game between policies. We propose two algorithms: Best-of-Nash (BoN) and Nash Mirror Descent (NMD). We prove that both algorithms achieve a duality gap that matches the problem lower bound. Empirically, we implement the two methods on three datasets, which shows that our methods substantially outperform the base policy, converging to the performance of the fine-tuned models. Moreover, our results show that NMD remains robust across the regularization parameter.