# As Simple as Fine-tuning: LLM Alignment via Bidirectional Negative Feedback Loss

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.04834 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04834/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 34 of its 39 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [LLM preference optimization methods](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/llm-preference-optimization-methods/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 34)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)
- [Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12950/) (2023)
- [Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Size](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00118/) (2024)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14734/) (2024)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12036/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15217/) (2023)
- [LLM-Blender: Ensembling Large Language Models with Pairwise Ranking and Generative Fusion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.02561/) (2023)
- [From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipeline](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11939/) (2024)
- [Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13848/) (2023)
- [UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01377/) (2023)
- [SLiC-HF: Sequence Likelihood Calibration with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10425/) (2023)
- [Contrastive Preference Optimization: Pushing the Boundaries of LLM Performance in Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08417/) (2024)
- [Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12845/) (2024)
- [CRUXEval: A Benchmark for Code Reasoning, Understanding and Execution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.03065/) (2024)
- [Is DPO Superior to PPO for LLM Alignment? A Comprehensive Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.10719/) (2024)
- [Smaug: Fixing Failure Modes of Preference Optimisation with DPO-Positive](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13228/) (2024)
- [WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04770/) (2024)
- [Disentangling Length from Quality in Direct Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.19159/) (2024)
- [Are We Done with MMLU?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04127/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Sailor2: Sailing in South-East Asia with Inclusive Multilingual LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12982/) (2025)
- [Full-Step-DPO: Self-Supervised Preference Optimization with Step-wise Rewards for Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14356/) (2025)
- [MORTAR: Multi-turn Metamorphic Testing for LLM-based Dialogue Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15557/) (2024)
- [Differential Information Distribution: A Bayesian Perspective on Direct Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23761/) (2025)
- [Future Policy Approximation for Offline Reinforcement Learning in LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.19893/) (2025)
- [Via Negativa for AI Alignment: Why Negative Constraints Are Structurally Superior to Positive Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.16417/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has emerged as a more computationally efficient alternative to Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) with Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO), eliminating the need for reward models and online sampling. Despite these benefits, DPO and its variants remain sensitive to hyper-parameters and prone to instability, particularly on mathematical datasets. We argue that these issues arise from the unidirectional likelihood-derivative negative feedback inherent in the log-likelihood loss function. To address this, we propose a novel LLM alignment loss that establishes a stable Bidirectional Negative Feedback (BNF) during optimization. Our proposed BNF loss eliminates the need for pairwise contrastive losses and does not require any extra tunable hyper-parameters or pairwise preference data, streamlining the alignment pipeline to be as simple as supervised fine-tuning. We conduct extensive experiments across two challenging QA benchmarks and four reasoning benchmarks. The experimental results show that BNF achieves comparable performance to the best methods on QA benchmarks, while its performance decrease on the four reasoning benchmarks is significantly lower compared to the best methods, thus striking a better balance between value alignment and reasoning ability. In addition, we further validate the performance of BNF on non-pairwise datasets, and conduct in-depth analysis of log-likelihood and logit shifts across different preference optimization methods.