Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Reward-aware Preference Optimization: A Unified Mathematical Framework for Model Alignment

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read RPO claims that DPO, IPO, SimPO, and online RLOO are all the same objective with different dial settings, and its new online variant, RPO-bwd, outperforms RLOO under a ground-truth reward judge.

desk verdict Valuable RPO extension with a clean synthetic testbed, but the SimPO recovery is not an equivalence and the same-RM evaluation limits the cookbook. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00203 v2 pith:6SRJ2EZQ submitted 2025-01-31 cs.LG cs.CL

Shengyang Sun , Yian Zhang , Alexander Bukharin , David Mosallanezhad , Jiaqi Zeng , Soumye Singhal , Gerald Shen , Adithya Renduchintala
show 6 more authors
Tugrul Konuk Yi Dong Zhilin Wang Dmitry Chichkov Olivier Delalleau Oleksii Kuchaiev
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CL
keywords reward-awarepreferenceoptimizationLLMalignmentdirect(DPO)REINFORCEleave-one-out(RLOO)implicitrewardmodelbackwardKLdivergenceonlineversusofflinetraining
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Model alignment has split into a tangle of objectives—DPO, IPO, SimPO, REINFORCE-style online methods, and more—that are usually compared as if they were unrelated recipes. This paper claims all of them are special cases of a single objective, reward-aware preference optimization (RPO), which fits a model's implicit reward to a target reward model under a distance metric, with the metric, the reward target, the number of responses per prompt, and the offline-versus-online choice as the only dials. Because every algorithm becomes a dial setting, the authors can ablate individual design choices under a controlled setup where one reward model plays the ground-truth judge. The headline empirical result is that their new online variant, RPO-bwd, beats the RLOO baseline (which RPO recovers as online RPO-sqloo) with higher reward, slower KL drift, and stable training, and that iterative alignment keeps adding gains. If the claims hold, practitioners get a cookbook: strong reward model available means run iterative online RPO-bwd; only human labels available means iterative offline alignment is the competitive choice.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the RPO objective $$D\!\left[\$\beta$\log\frac{\pi_\$\theta$(y_1|x)}{\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}(y_1|x)}-\$\beta$\log\frac{\pi_\$\theta$(y_2|x)}{\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}(y_2|x)}\;\Big\|\;\eta\,r^\star(x,y_1)-\eta\,r^\star(x,y_2)\right],$$ built on DPO's closed-form identity that any policy induces an implicit reward $r_{\pi_\theta}(x,y)=\beta\log\frac{\pi_\theta(y|x)}{\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}(y|x)}+\beta\log Z(x)$, with the partition function $\log Z(x)$ cancelling in margins and differences. Two metric families make the template computable: the squared distance, extended by a leave-one-out subtraction that also kills $\log Z(x)$, and the backward Bernoulli or categorical KL divergence, in which rewards enter as softmax logits. For $K$ responses the objective's gradient takes the REINFORCE form $\beta\sum_k S_k\,\nabla_\theta\log\pi_\theta(y_k|x)$, with $S_k$ the difference between softmax probabilities of predicted rewards and of target rewards; each historical algorithm is a particular choice of metric, target, $\beta$, $\eta$, $K$, and online-versus-offline data.

What would settle it

Have human annotators (or a second, independent strong reward model) judge the final policy's generations on the lmsys test and alpacaeval prompts and compare with Nemotron-4-340B-RM's scores: if human pairwise preferences contradict the model's margins on a material fraction of prompts, or if online RPO-bwd's win-rate advantage over RLOO disappears under the independent judge, then the ground-truth-judge assumption is violated and the reported gains are overoptimization against one reward model rather than better alignment. A second, cheaper check: implement RPO with DPO's dial settings and with the sqloo setting and verify the losses coincide with DPO and RLOO to floating-point precision, which would confirm the unification claim directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that sequence-level preference optimization reduces to one template: minimize a distance $D$ between the policy's implicit reward margin $\beta\log\frac{\pi_\theta(y_1|x)}{\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}(y_1|x)}-\beta\log\frac{\pi_\theta(y_2|x)}{\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}(y_2|x)}$ and the scaled target reward margin $\eta\,r^\star(x,y_1)-\eta\,r^\star(x,y_2)$, where the intractable partition function of the implicit reward cancels in the margin. Picking the backward Bernoulli KL metric with an infinite target margin recovers DPO; the squared metric with a fixed target margin recovers IPO; the squared metric with a learned reward target recovers Distill DPO; a length-normalized reference-free setting recovers SimPO; and the leave-one-out squared metric in the online setting recovers REINFORCE Leave-One-Out (RLOO). Extending the template to $K$ responses per prompt, the paper shows the online RPO gradient is a REINFORCE estimator whose per-response scale is the difference between softmax probabilities over predicted rewards and over target rewards; with backward categorical KL this defines online RPO-bwd, which in the ground-truth-judge experiments achieves higher average reward, slower KL divergence growth, and no training crashes compared with RLOO.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one reward model, Nemotron-4-340B-RM, can stand in as the ground-truth judge of response quality while also being the source of training labels, the online reward being optimized, and the evaluation metric; if that model does not reflect real human preferences, the ranking of algorithms and the cookbook built on it may not survive contact with human judgment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any head-to-head comparison among DPO, IPO, SimPO, cDPO, Distill DPO, and RLOO can be restated as a comparison of RPO dial settings, so selecting an alignment algorithm becomes selecting a metric, a reward target, and a data mode.
  • When the ground-truth reward model is accessible, online training systematically beats offline training (70B online RPO-bwd reaches an 85.7% alpacaeval win rate versus 81.0% offline in iteration 1), so the availability of a strong judge is the factor that decides between online and offline recipes.
  • Online RPO-bwd optimizes the RLHF objective better than RLOO: higher reward, slower KL divergence growth, and no mid-training crashes across runs.
  • Raising the number of responses per prompt from $K=2$ to $K=4$ changes offline results little, suggesting response count is not a lever that matters much in this regime.
  • Iterative alignment, re-running offline or online RPO with the current policy as the new reference, improves results consistently in both modes, with the strongest online three-iteration model reaching 93.8% out-of-distribution win rate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the framework turns the algorithm-selection question into a reward-model-quality question—the paper's own learnt-RM experiments show online methods collapse to near-SFT when the judge is weak, implying the practical bottleneck for online alignment is reward-model training, which the paper explicitly leaves to future work.
  • Editorial extension: because RPO's gradient is REINFORCE with softmax-difference scales, other variance-reduction normalizations (such as mean-standard-deviation standardization) are natural neighboring dial settings the paper does not test; a direct comparison of RPO-bwd against those normalizations would map the variance-control design space more completely.
  • Editorial extension: the fact that RPO fails to recover PPO because it is sequence-level suggests a token-level version of the same template would close the gap, and the framework's gradient algebra gives a route to deriving such a token-level objective.
  • Editorial extension: a stress test with an out-of-family judge or human raters would reveal how much of RPO-bwd's reported edge is genuine preference improvement versus reward hacking on Nemotron-4-340B-RM; the paper's own reward-hacking figure shows how quickly learnt-RM rewards diverge from ground-truth rewards.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces Reward-Aware Preference Optimization (RPO), a family of objectives that matches the policy's implicit reward to an explicit target reward model under a distance metric. By varying the metric, the number of responses per prompt, online vs. offline response collection, and the reward scale, the paper claims to recover DPO, IPO, SimPO, and RLOO as special cases. It then proposes a synthetic experimental setup in which Nemotron-4-340B-RM acts as a ground-truth judge, and reports a large ablation study on llama3-8B/70B covering objectives, numbers of responses, online/offline variants, iterative alignment, and reward-model quality. The headline empirical conclusions are that online RPO-bwd outperforms RLOO and offline methods, iterative alignment brings consistent gains, and online methods require a strong reward model.

Significance. The RPO framework is a valuable organizational device if its unification claims are correct, and the proposed online RPO-bwd is a practically interesting algorithm. The derivations in Appendix C and Section 3.4 for DPO, IPO, and RLOO are clean and correct, and the multi-response extensions (sqloo and backward categorical KL) are useful and clearly presented. The synthetic-judge testbed is a sensible way to isolate algorithm-level differences when comparing preference optimization methods, and the paper's pseudocode and experimental details are admirably thorough. However, the claimed recovery of SimPO is mathematically invalid as stated, and the headline empirical comparisons are weakened by single-run 70B results, training crashes in the RLOO baseline, and the use of the same reward model as annotator, optimizer reward, and evaluator. These issues are fixable and do not invalidate the core framework, so the paper deserves a major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 1, §3.2, Eq. (4)] The claimed recovery of SimPO is not a valid special case. For the backward-KL metric, the two-response RPO logit is a = β[log(πθ(y1|x)/πref(y1|x)) − log(πθ(y2|x)/πref(y2|x))] because the partition function cancels in Eq. (4). Substituting log πref(y|x) ∝ |y| gives a = β[log πθ(y1|x) − log πθ(y2|x)] − βc(|y1| − |y2|), which has no term proportional to log πθ(yk)/|yk|. Equality with SimPO's logit βs[log πθ(y1|x)/|y1| − log πθ(y2|x)/|y2|] would require a πref that depends on πθ and on the specific log-probability values, not a fixed reference. Thus the equivalence fails for variable-length responses, which are exactly the kind of responses used in the lmsys and AlpacaEval evaluations in Table 2. Footnote 2 acknowledges that the implied πref is not a probability distribution, which is a further symptom of the mismatch. The central unification claim in Section 1 and the Conclusion should be corrected by removing SimPO from the recovered set or by stating a precise approximate recovery with explicit conditions and error bounds.
  2. [Section 6, Table 2] The 70B entries are single runs (the table caption states 'For 70b, we run once for the best hyper-parameter due to compute limitations'), yet the text describes online RPO-bwd as improving 'significantly' over RLOO, e.g., the lmsys(test) avgReward increase from 5.796 to 5.916 and win-rate from 78.5% to 85.7%. With no error bars or significance tests for the 70B numbers, 'significant' is unsupported; the 8B confidence intervals are ±0.02–0.03 in avg reward, so single-run 70B deltas of about 0.12 could fall within run-to-run noise. Please report repeated runs (or at least a small number of seeds) for the headline 70B comparisons, or rephrase the conclusion as a single-run observation.
  3. [Figure 2, Appendix F] The comparison between online RPO-bwd and online RPO-sqloo (RLOO) is affected by training crashes. Appendix F states that 'multiple RPO-sqloo training runs crashed in the middle of training' and Figure 2 notes that 'RLOO's training exploded in the middle.' It is unclear whether the reported RLOO numbers in Table 2 come from crashed runs and how the best checkpoint was selected in those cases. If a crashed run's best checkpoint is used, the comparison conflates optimization quality with training stability and may understate what a stable RLOO run would have achieved. Please report the number of crashed runs, the exact checkpoint-selection rule, and, if any non-crashed RLOO runs exist, their performance.
  4. [Section 4.1, Table 2, Conclusion] The evaluation protocol uses Nemotron-4-340B-RM as the ground-truth annotator of the preference data, as the reward source for online RPO, and as the final evaluation metric. This circularity means the headline results — online RPO-bwd improves over RLOO and over offline methods — demonstrate optimization against that particular reward model, not against human preferences. The paper's own Figure 4 shows that a learnt reward model can be gamed, underscoring the need for an external judge. The Conclusion's recipe recommendation ('If a strong RM or a ground-truth verifier is available, we suggest running iterative online alignment') should be scoped more precisely as 'when the target of interest is exactly the reward model used for training and evaluation,' or an additional held-out judge (a different reward model or a human-annotated sample) should be used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, first paragraph] There is a typo: 'scuh' should be 'such'.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (10)] The forward KL divergence formula in Eq. (10) is identical to the backward KL formula in Eq. (7); the forward KL should place the q^a distribution in the log ratio, i.e., D_fwd should be Σ_i q^a_i log(q^a_i / q^b_i).
  3. [Table 1, footnote 2] The fact that the πref for the SimPO row is not a valid probability distribution should be stated in the main text near Table 1, not only in a footnote, because it directly affects the claim of recovery.
  4. [Throughout] Several typos should be corrected: 'bewteen' in the Introduction, 'evalute' in Section 6, 'vulernerable' in Appendix D, 'Grund-Truth' in the iterative-alignment paragraph, and 'minic' in the reward-model-quality section.
  5. [References] A few references are incomplete: 'Shao et al.' and 'META et al.' lack full author lists and years; please format them consistently with the journal's style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity in the RPO derivation chain; the SimPO recovery gap and same-RM evaluation are correctness and external-validity issues, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained. Equation (4) defines the RPO objective as a distance between implicit and explicit reward margins, and the recoveries of DPO, IPO, cDPO, Distill DPO, BRAIn, DNO, and RLOO are shown as algebraic identities (Appendix C and Section 3.4), not as restatements of the framework's own assumptions. The DPO row uses the limiting margin δr⋆ = ∞, which yields −log σ(βδrπ) exactly; IPO follows from the squared-distance choice; RLOO follows from the explicit leave-one-out squared-distance gradient derivation. These are unifications by construction in the benign sense of instantiating a common objective, not circularity. Section 3.1's reference to NVIDIA et al. (2024) for the original RPO is a normal self-citation and is not load-bearing: the extensions and derivations in this paper stand alone. Two caveats are worth stating, but neither is circular. First, Table 1's SimPO row relies on "log πref(y|x) ∝ |y|", and footnote 2 concedes that the corresponding πref is not a mathematically valid probability distribution; moreover, for responses of different lengths, the RPO logit does not equal SimPO's length-normalized logit, so the unification claim is overstated for SimPO. That is a mathematical-correctness gap, not a self-referential reduction. Second, Section 4.1 chooses Nemotron-4-340B-RM as the synthetic Ground-Truth judge and also uses its predicted reward as the evaluation metric, so the reported improvements quantify optimization of the assumed judge rather than generalization to human preferences; this is a disclosed external-validity limitation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Under the circularity rubric, no load-bearing step reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework's free choices are the distance metric D, the target reward r*, and hyperparameters beta and eta; the experimental conclusions depend on beta and eta tuning and on the ground-truth RM assumption. No hidden parameters are fitted to derive the unification; the unification is by construction.

free parameters (2)
  • beta (KL regularization coefficient) = tuned per algorithm: RPO-bwd offline beta in [1e-3, 1e-2], RPO-sqloo offline beta in [3e-3, 1e-1], online beta in…
    Controls the KL penalty to the reference policy in the RPO objective (Eq 4); values are selected by validation reward. Performance comparisons depend on these choices.
  • eta (explicit reward scale) = tuned: RPO-bwd offline eta in [1, 100], online eta in [10, 30]; fixed eta=1 for RPO-sqloo
    Scales the target explicit reward in Eq 4. The paper argues eta and beta are partly redundant for squared distance but are separate tuning choices for the backward KL variant.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Bradley-Terry model describes human preferences between two responses
    Used in Section 2 to define RLHF reward-model training and in the implicit-reward derivation. Standard in the preference-optimization literature.
  • standard math The optimal policy for the KL-regularized RLHF objective has the closed form pi*(y|x) proportional to pi_ref(y|x) exp(r(x,y)/beta) (Eq 2)
    This is the DPO derivation result, used to define the implicit reward r_pi_theta in Eq 3. Assumes the KL constraint and the reward are well-defined.
  • domain assumption The chosen reward model Nemotron-4-340B-RM faithfully represents the Formalized Goal (human preferences)
    Section 4.1 states any reasonable RM can be used 'since it is assumed to be the Ground-Truth'. This assumption underlies all experimental conclusions.
  • domain assumption The implicit reward can be parameterized as beta log(pi/pi_ref) plus a per-prompt partition function that cancels in paired and multi-response comparisons
    Used throughout Section 3; inherited from DPO. Requires the reference policy to be a valid distribution, which the SimPO case violates (footnote 2).
  • domain assumption Sequence-level rewards are sufficient; token-level credit assignment (as in PPO) is not needed for the RPO family
    Stated in Limitations: RPO cannot connect to PPO because it applies at the sequence level.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reward-aware Preference Optimization: A Unified Mathematical Framework for Model Alignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SRJ2EZQ

@misc{pith2026250200203,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reward-aware Preference Optimization: A Unified Mathematical Framework for Model Alignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SRJ2EZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00203}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid development of large language model (LLM) alignment algorithms has resulted in a complex and fragmented landscape, with limited clarity on the effectiveness of different methods and their inter-connections. This paper introduces Reward-Aware Preference Optimization (RPO), a mathematical framework that unifies popular preference optimization techniques in LLM alignment, including DPO, IPO, SimPO, and REINFORCE (LOO), among others. RPO provides a structured approach to disentangle and systematically study the impact of various design choices, such as the optimization objective, the number of responses per prompt, and the use of implicit versus explicit reward models, on LLM preference optimization. We additionally propose a new experimental setup that enables the clean and direct ablation of such design choices. Through an extensive series of ablation studies within the RPO framework, we gain insights into the critical factors shaping model alignment, offering practical guidance on the most effective strategies for improving LLM alignment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00203 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The average reward (left) and win-rate (mid) over lmsys (valid) prompts along training. The right figure shows the MT bench (judged by Mistral Large 2). Error bars represent 95% confi￾dence intervals over 3 independent runs. We compare two training datasets, which are generated by the llama3-8b-sft model using lmsys and synthetic prompts, respectively. We observe training on in-distribution lmsys prompts achieves hi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance improves consistently with more iterations. We demonstrate the effect of iterative online/offline RPO￾bwd using the 70b model and show their performance in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Online RPO-bwd vs online RPO-sqloo (RLOO). We plot average rewards on lmsys(valid) (left) and the KL divergence with the reference policy (right). The valid reward increases faster and the KL divergence increases slower for RPO-bwd. This indicates that online RPO-bwd can better optimize the RLHF objective (Eq 1) than RLOO. In addition, RLOO’s training exploded in the middle; while RPO-bwd’s training kept stable in a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GT RM’s rewards vs Learnt RM’s rewards along training. 7. Conclusion Summary of Learnings. This paper has shown many learnings to understand model alignment algorithms better. • RPO unifies a variety of alignment algorithms like DPO, IPO, RLOO through different design …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Back to basics: Revisit- ing reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms

    Ahmadian, A., Cremer, C., Gallé, M., Fadaee, M., Kreutzer, J., Üstün, A., and Hooker, S. Back to basics: Revisit- ing reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14740,

    arXiv

  2. [5]

    Dubois, Y ., Galambosi, B., Liang, P., and Hashimoto, T. B. Length-controlled alpacaeval: A simple way to debias automatic evaluators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04475,

    arXiv

  3. [6]

    Kto: Model alignment as prospect theoretic optimization

    Ethayarajh, K., Xu, W., Muennighoff, N., Jurafsky, D., and Kiela, D. Kto: Model alignment as prospect theoretic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01306,

    arXiv

  4. [7]

    Robust preference optimization through reward model distillation

    Fisch, A., Eisenstein, J., Zayats, V ., Agarwal, A., Beirami, A., Nagpal, C., Shaw, P., and Berant, J. Robust preference optimization through reward model distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19316,

    arXiv

  5. [10]

    Measuring mas- sive multitask language understanding

    Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Zou, A., Mazeika, M., Song, D., and Steinhardt, J. Measuring mas- sive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300,

    arXiv 2009

  6. [12]

    Y ., Chandu, K., Dziri, N., Kumar, S., Zick, T., Choi, Y ., et al

    Lambert, N., Pyatkin, V ., Morrison, J., Miranda, L., Lin, B. Y ., Chandu, K., Dziri, N., Kumar, S., Zick, T., Choi, Y ., et al. Rewardbench: Evaluating reward models for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13787,

    arXiv

  7. [13]

    On the limited generalization capability of the implicit reward model induced by direct preference optimization

    Lin, Y ., Seto, S., Ter Hoeve, M., Metcalf, K., Theobald, B.-J., Wang, X., Zhang, Y ., Huang, C., and Zhang, T. On the limited generalization capability of the implicit reward model induced by direct preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03650,

    arXiv

  8. [14]

    Understanding reference policies in direct preference optimization

    Liu, Y ., Liu, P., and Cohan, A. Understanding reference policies in direct preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13709,

    arXiv

Show all 25 references
  1. [15]

    Simpo: Simple preference optimization with a reference-free reward

    9 Reward-aware Preference Optimization Unifies Model Alignment Meng, Y ., Xia, M., and Chen, D. Simpo: Simple preference optimization with a reference-free reward. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14734,

    arXiv

  2. [16]

    The llama 3 herd of models

    META, ., Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Yang, A., Fan, A., et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783,

    arXiv

  3. [17]

    H., Bhattacharya, P., Brundyn, A., Casper, J., Catanzaro, B., Clay, S., Cohen, J., et al

    NVIDIA, ., Adler, B., Agarwal, N., Aithal, A., Anh, D. H., Bhattacharya, P., Brundyn, A., Casper, J., Catanzaro, B., Clay, S., Cohen, J., et al. Nemotron-4 340b technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11704,

    arXiv

  4. [18]

    L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al

    OpenAI, ., Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774,

    arXiv

  5. [19]

    Pandey, G., Nandwani, Y ., Naseem, T., Mishra, M., Xu, G., Raghu, D., Joshi, S., Munawar, A., and Astudillo, R. F. Brain: Bayesian reward-conditioned amortized inference for natural language generation from feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02479,

    arXiv

  6. [20]

    Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization in direct alignment algo- rithms

    Rafailov, R., Chittepu, Y ., Park, R., Sikchi, H., Hejna, J., Knox, B., Finn, C., and Niekum, S. Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization in direct alignment algo- rithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02900, 2024a. Rafailov, R., Sharma, A., Mitchell, E., Manning, C. D., Er-...

    arXiv

  7. [21]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms

    Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., and Klimov, O. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

    arXiv

  8. [22]

    org/abs/2402.03300

    URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2402.03300. Song, Y ., Swamy, G., Singh, A., Bagnell, D., and Sun, W. The importance of online data: Understanding preference fine-tuning via coverage. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Tang, Y ., Guo, D...

    arXiv

  9. [23]

    K., Zhu, Z

    Wang, Z., Bi, B., Huang, C., Pentyala, S. K., Zhu, Z. J., Asur, S., and Cheng, N. C. Una: unifying alignments of rlhf/ppo, dpo and kto by a generalized implicit reward function. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15339, 2024a. Wang, Z., Bi, B., Pentyala, S. K., Ramnath, K., Chaudhuri, ...

    arXiv

  10. [25]

    Derivation of the distance functions for the multi-response scenario Squared Distance with Leave-One-Out (sqloo)

    10 Reward-aware Preference Optimization Unifies Model Alignment A. Derivation of the distance functions for the multi-response scenario Squared Distance with Leave-One-Out (sqloo). Computing the squared distance naively between the implicit rewards and explicit rewards cannot ...

    2024

  11. [1992]

    P., Gonzalez, J

    Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y ., Li, T., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y ., Li, Z., Lin, Z., Xing, E. P., Gonzalez, J. E., Stoica, I., and Zhang, H. Lmsys-chat-1m: A large-scale real-world llm conversation dataset, 2023a. Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y ., Zhuang, S., Wu...

    arXiv

  12. [2020]

    A., Choi, Y ., and Hajishirzi, H

    Ivison, H., Wang, Y ., Liu, J., Wu, Z., Pyatkin, V ., Lam- bert, N., Smith, N. A., Choi, Y ., and Hajishirzi, H. Unpacking dpo and ppo: Disentangling best practices for learning from preference feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09279,

    arXiv

  13. [2021]

    Self- play fine-tuning converts weak language models to strong language models

    Chen, Z., Deng, Y ., Yuan, H., Ji, K., and Gu, Q. Self- play fine-tuning converts weak language models to strong language models. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning. Chiang, W.-L., Zheng, L., Sheng, Y ., Angelopoulos, A. N., Li, T., Li, D., Zhu, B., Zh...

    2023

  14. [2022]

    Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. D. O., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y ., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374,

    arXiv

  15. [2023]

    Deepseek-r1: In- centivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Guo, D., Yang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Zhang, R., Xu, R., Zhu, Q., Ma, S., Wang, P., Bi, X., et al. Deepseek-r1: In- centivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

    arXiv

  16. [2024]

    Training a helpful and harmless assistant with rein- forcement learning from human feedback

    Bai, Y ., Jones, A., Ndousse, K., Askell, A., Chen, A., Das- Sarma, N., Drain, D., Fort, S., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., et al. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with rein- forcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862,

    arXiv

  17. [2025]

    Direct language model alignment from online ai feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04792,

    Guo, S., Zhang, B., Liu, T., Liu, T., Khalman, M., Llinares, F., Rame, A., Mesnard, T., Zhao, Y ., Piot, B., et al. Direct language model alignment from online ai feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04792,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.