EvoPref: Multi-Objective Evolutionary Optimization Discovers Diverse LLM Alignments Beyond Gradient Descent
About
Gradient-based preference optimization methods for large language model (LLM) alignment suffer from preference collapse, converging to narrow behavioral modes while neglecting preference diversity. We introduce EvoPref, a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm that maintains populations of Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) adapters optimized across helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty objectives using Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) selection with archive-based diversity preservation. Our primary contribution is demonstrating that population-based methods discover substantially more diverse alignments than gradient descent. On standard benchmarks, EvoPref improves preference coverage by 18% (median 82.5% vs. 70.0% for ORPO, $p<0.001$, Wilcoxon, $n=30$) and reduces collapse rates by 47% (11.0% vs. 20.6%, $p<0.001$), while achieving competitive alignment quality (median 75.5% RewardBench vs. 75.0% for ORPO, $p<0.05$). We provide theoretical motivation extending recent multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) runtime analysis (Dang et al., 2025) suggesting why archive-based methods escape collapse more effectively than single-trajectory optimization. Comprehensive comparisons against MOEA/D, SMS-EMOA, CMA-ES, and gradient baselines (DPO, IPO, KTO, ORPO) with rigorous statistical testing (Friedman with Holm correction, Vargha-Delaney effect sizes, median with IQR) confirm that multi-objective selection with diversity preservation is essential. This work establishes evolutionary optimization as a principled paradigm for diverse LLM alignment.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multi-turn Conversation Evaluation | MT-Bench | MT-Bench Score7.62 | 68 | |
| Preference Prediction | RewardBench | Accuracy75.5 | 19 | |
| Safety Evaluation | Safety Eval | Safety Score93.8 | 9 | |
| Truthfulness Evaluation | TruthfulQA | TQA Score54.9 | 9 | |
| Reward Model Evaluation | RewardBench | -- | 7 | |
| Response Diversity | Anthropic hh-rlhf | Preference Coverage82.5 | 6 |