Forward KL Regularized Preference Optimization for Aligning Diffusion Policies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diffusion models have achieved remarkable success in sequential decision-making by leveraging the highly expressive model capabilities in policy learning. A central problem for learning diffusion policies is to align the policy output with human intents in various tasks. To achieve this, previous methods conduct return-conditioned policy generation or Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based policy optimization, while they both rely on pre-defined reward functions. In this work, we propose a novel framework, Forward KL regularized Preference optimization for aligning Diffusion policies, to align the diffusion policy with preferences directly. We first train a diffusion policy from the offline dataset without considering the preference, and then align the policy to the preference data via direct preference optimization. During the alignment phase, we formulate direct preference learning in a diffusion policy, where the forward KL regularization is employed in preference optimization to avoid generating out-of-distribution actions. We conduct extensive experiments for MetaWorld manipulation and D4RL tasks. The results show our method exhibits superior alignment with preferences and outperforms previous state-of-the-art algorithms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it