# arXiv cs.AI: Enforcing Axioms for AI Alignment under Loss-Based Rules [Canonical reading](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-enforcing-axioms-for-ai-alignment-under-loss-based-e5926f9c) Alexandros Hollender and Sonja Kraiczy ask whether loss-based training can make reward models respect Pareto optimality (PO): if one response is better under every principle, it should not receive a lower reward. In methods such as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), reward models learn from pairwise comparisons; the authors frame each principle, such as helpfulness or avoiding toxicity, as a voter comparing responses. Their results challenge the idea that simply using a richer model fixes the problem: PO can still fail with polynomials of any fixed degree and one-hidden-layer ReLU multilayer perceptrons (MLPs) of any fixed width, under suitable finite parameter bounds. They also identify a narrower route to PO: linear rewards can recover it in an idealized setting with uniform comparison directions and equal comparison lengths. This makes comparison-data design central to their proposal for constitutional-style alignment that retains loss-based training. The result matters because a reward model could otherwise rank a response higher even when it is less helpful and more toxic. Escape Meridian's reading: the abstract does not establish whether the proposed data conditions can be achieved in practical training; its recovery result depends on stated assumptions. Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Nov 9, 2026 (2026-11-09). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T21:03:34.305Z. First observed: 2026-11-11T05:06:43.282Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-11T21:02:22.986Z. - [Enforcing Axioms for AI Alignment under Loss-Based Rules](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Limits The supplied evidence is the arXiv page's abstract, not the full paper; details of the proofs and assumptions are not available here. The abstract's recovery result is for an idealized setting with uniform comparison directions and equal comparison lengths; it does not establish that these conditions hold in practical training. ## Open question What comparison-data designs, beyond the idealized uniform directions and equal lengths, would let linear rewards recover Pareto optimality under loss-based training? ## Source-stated The authors model principles as voters that compare responses according to each principle. > we treat each principle as a voter that compares responses according to that principle - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Source-stated In the authors' linear social choice model, an optimal linear reward model can violate Pareto optimality. > an optimal linear reward model can violate Pareto optimality (PO) - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Source-stated The authors report that Pareto optimality can fail for fixed-degree polynomials and one-hidden-layer ReLU MLPs of any fixed width d≥2 under suitable finite parameter bounds. > PO can still fail for polynomials of any fixed degree and one-hidden-layer ReLU multilayer perceptrons (MLPs) of any fixed width $ d\\ge 2 $ with suitable finite parameter bounds. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Source-stated The authors recover Pareto optimality for loss-based training of linear rewards in an idealized setting with uniform comparison directions and equal comparison lengths. > We then recover PO for loss-based training of linear rewards under suitable assumptions in an idealized setting with uniform comparison directions and equal comparison lengths. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Source-stated The authors propose dataset design as a way to seek Pareto optimality in constitutional-style alignment while retaining loss-based training. > These results motivate dataset design as an approach to recovering PO in constitutional-style alignment while retaining loss-based training. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Escape Meridian interpretation The abstract's recovery result is conditional on its stated assumptions, including an idealized comparison setting. > under suitable assumptions in an idealized setting with uniform comparison directions and equal comparison lengths - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Source and contributor context Hollender, Alexandros, Kraiczy, Sonja · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Reinforcement learning from human feedback Training that rewards a model for answers people rate highly, so it learns the kind of answers people prefer. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#reinforcement-learning-from-human-feedback-rlhf) ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 841c2cfa-1858-49e6-8741-0d1d27d34225. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T21:03:34.305Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: 8f97729b27a47374e63a0e71bbd110b3ebd721db556d0aca155918273c73bc8e. Source text hash: 35e13d0d8eb266a829aee1183c89e7f02ad8f46ecfabd71bb6bea84f9f1d1756. ## Revision and source-check history ### Version 1 — 2026-11-11T21:03:34.305Z Alexandros Hollender and Sonja Kraiczy ask whether loss-based training can make reward models respect Pareto optimality (PO): if one response is better under every principle, it should not receive a lower reward. In methods such as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), reward models learn from pairwise comparisons; the authors frame each principle, such as helpfulness or avoiding toxicity, as a voter comparing responses. Their results challenge the idea that simply using a richer model fixes the problem: PO can still fail with polynomials of any fixed degree and one-hidden-layer ReLU multilayer perceptrons (MLPs) of any fixed width, under suitable finite parameter bounds. They also identify a narrower route to PO: linear rewards can recover it in an idealized setting with uniform comparison directions and equal comparison lengths. This makes comparison-data design central to their proposal for constitutional-style alignment that retains loss-based training. The result matters because a reward model could otherwise rank a response higher even when it is less helpful and more toxic. Escape Meridian's reading: the abstract does not establish whether the proposed data conditions can be achieved in practical training; its recovery result depends on stated assumptions. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Nov 9, 2026 (2026-11-09). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T21:03:34.305Z. First observed: 2026-11-11T05:06:43.282Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-11T21:02:22.986Z. - [Enforcing Axioms for AI Alignment under Loss-Based Rules](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Limits The supplied evidence is the arXiv page's abstract, not the full paper; details of the proofs and assumptions are not available here. The abstract's recovery result is for an idealized setting with uniform comparison directions and equal comparison lengths; it does not establish that these conditions hold in practical training. ## Open question What comparison-data designs, beyond the idealized uniform directions and equal lengths, would let linear rewards recover Pareto optimality under loss-based training? ## Source-stated The authors model principles as voters that compare responses according to each principle. > we treat each principle as a voter that compares responses according to that principle - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Source-stated In the authors' linear social choice model, an optimal linear reward model can violate Pareto optimality. > an optimal linear reward model can violate Pareto optimality (PO) - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Source-stated The authors report that Pareto optimality can fail for fixed-degree polynomials and one-hidden-layer ReLU MLPs of any fixed width d≥2 under suitable finite parameter bounds. > PO can still fail for polynomials of any fixed degree and one-hidden-layer ReLU multilayer perceptrons (MLPs) of any fixed width $ d\\ge 2 $ with suitable finite parameter bounds. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Source-stated The authors recover Pareto optimality for loss-based training of linear rewards in an idealized setting with uniform comparison directions and equal comparison lengths. > We then recover PO for loss-based training of linear rewards under suitable assumptions in an idealized setting with uniform comparison directions and equal comparison lengths. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Source-stated The authors propose dataset design as a way to seek Pareto optimality in constitutional-style alignment while retaining loss-based training. > These results motivate dataset design as an approach to recovering PO in constitutional-style alignment while retaining loss-based training. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Escape Meridian interpretation The abstract's recovery result is conditional on its stated assumptions, including an idealized comparison setting. > under suitable assumptions in an idealized setting with uniform comparison directions and equal comparison lengths - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.13369) ## Source and contributor context Hollender, Alexandros, Kraiczy, Sonja · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Reinforcement learning from human feedback Training that rewards a model for answers people rate highly, so it learns the kind of answers people prefer. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#reinforcement-learning-from-human-feedback-rlhf) ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 841c2cfa-1858-49e6-8741-0d1d27d34225. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T21:03:34.305Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: 8f97729b27a47374e63a0e71bbd110b3ebd721db556d0aca155918273c73bc8e. Source text hash: 35e13d0d8eb266a829aee1183c89e7f02ad8f46ecfabd71bb6bea84f9f1d1756. ### uncertain — 2026-11-11T21:03:34.305Z — anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 Publication: 841c2cfa-1858-49e6-8741-0d1d27d34225 attribution — pass: The reading correctly credits the arXiv paper to Alexandros Hollender and Sonja Kraiczy. It frames the results as the authors' findings and labels its closing inference as Escape Meridian's reading. The prior linear-violation result is presented as background rather than credited to the authors as new work. > Authors:Alexandros Hollender, Sonja Kraiczy summary — uncertain: The reading drops conditions that limit the scope of the results. First, it omits that the principles-as-voters are modeled as linear directions in a fixed embedding space, a simplifying assumption that underlies the failure results. Second, it says MLPs of any fixed width but drops the d≥2 condition. Third, it never explains in plain terms what 'uniform comparison directions and equal comparison lengths' mean, although they are central to the recovery result. Smallest repair: add one clause noting the linear-direction modeling assumption, restore d≥2, and give a brief gloss of the data conditions. > We represent these voters as linear directions in a fixed embedding space, a simplifying assumption motivated by the Linear Representation Hypothesis. date — pass: The originalPublished date of 2026-11-09 matches the v1 arXiv submission date. It does not use the later feed date. > \[Submitted on 9 Nov 2026\] support — pass: Each claim matches the abstract. The interpretive claim is labeled and stays conditional. The stated significance, that a response that is less helpful and more toxic could rank higher, mirrors the abstract's own example. The question follows from the idealized recovery conditions without asserting anything unsupported. > a response A can be less helpful and more toxic than B, yet still receive a higher reward media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the original arXiv abstract page, which is the source itself. ## Recorded references Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter. No public references recorded here yet. [Reference data (JSON)](/readings/e5926f9c9d03df9ef49d69704c4438e7b49059e16ccc31491a9da70143f408f8/references.json) ## Corrections and challenges [Send a correction or an opposing source](https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/) [JSON record](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-enforcing-axioms-for-ai-alignment-under-loss-based-e5926f9c.json)