Aligning large language models to human preferences is crucial for real-world deployment but frequently incurs an alignment tax, leading to the catastrophic forgetting of pre-trained general capabilit...
arXiv:2504. 06659v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Despite advances in Preference Alignment (PA) for Large Language Models (LLMs), mainstream methods like reinforcement learning with human feedback face notable challenges.
By Xiaohua Feng, Yuyuan Li, Huwei Ji, Jiaming Zhang, Li Zhang, Tianyu Du, Chaochao Chen
arXiv:2606. 09850v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-training alignment algorithms are predominantly evaluated as black boxes, obscuring how they reshape language models' internal computations.
By Aarush Sinha, Ishan Garg, Veeraraju Elluru, Arth Singh, Kushal Garg
arXiv:2509. 08022v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Aligning large language models (LLMs) with diverse human values is essential for safe and effective deployment, yet existing benchmarks often overlook cultural and demographic variation.
By Yao Liang, Dongcheng Zhao, Feifei Zhao, Guobin Shen, Yuwei Wang, Dongqi Liang, Yi Zeng
arXiv:2607. 03248v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The alignment of large language models with human preferences is commonly achieved through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback or Direct Preference Optimization.
By Jialiang Wang, Xianming Liu, Xiong Zhou, Hui Liu, Haoliang Li
The paper investigates how preference tuning—optimizing language models with explicit preference signals—behaves when applied to new domains. It systematically compares five alignment objectives and several adaptation strategies, such as target‑domain supervised fine‑tuning and pseudo‑labeling, across summarization, question‑answering helpfulness, and safety tasks. Results show that while pseudo‑labeling reduces domain‑shift degradation, it also causes mode collapse, highlighting a trade‑off between generalization and diversity.
By Constantinos Karouzos, Xingwei Tan, Nikolaos Aletras