Current critic-less RLHF methods aggregate multi-objective rewards via an arithmetic mean, leaving them vulnerable to constraint neglect: strong performance in one objective (e.g., correctness) can offset critical failures in others (e.g., safety or formatting). This can mask low-performing "bottleneck" rewards that are necessary for reliable multi-objective alignment.
We propose Reward-Variance Policy Optimization (RVPO), a risk-sensitive framework that penalizes variance across rewards during advantage aggregation, and shifts the objective from "maximize sum" to "maximize consistency." Its SoftMin objective can be locally approximated by the mean reward minus an inter-objective variance penalty.
We evaluate RVPO on rubric-based medical and scientific reasoning with up to 17 reward signals (Qwen2.5-3B/7B/14B) and on tool-calling with rule-based constraints (Qwen2.5-1.5B/3B). RVPO improves overall scores on HealthBench (0.254 vs. 0.207 for GDPO at 14B, averaged across five training seeds). RVPO also maintains competitive accuracy on GPQA-Diamond while reducing late-stage degradation observed in other multi-reward methods.