# The Differences Between Direct Alignment Algorithms are a Blur

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01237 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01237/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 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 44 of its 61 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Feb 2025.

## 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 44)

- [Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6980/) (2014)
- [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)
- [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)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [FlashAttention-2: Faster Attention with Better Parallelism and Work Partitioning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.08691/) (2023)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14858/) (2022)
- [SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14734/) (2024)
- [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)
- [Enhancing Chat Language Models by Scaling High-quality Instructional Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14233/) (2023)
- [SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes: A Comparative Study of Foundation Model Post-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17161/) (2025)
- [ORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07691/) (2024)
- [Zephyr: Direct Distillation of LM Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16944/) (2023)
- [Neural Text Generation with Unlikelihood Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.04319/) (2019)
- [From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipeline](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11939/) (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)
- [Advancing LLM Reasoning Generalists with Preference Trees](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.02078/) (2024)
- [Beyond Reverse KL: Generalizing Direct Preference Optimization with Diverse Divergence Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16240/) (2023)
- [Generalized Preference Optimization: A Unified Approach to Offline Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05749/) (2024)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization in Direct Alignment Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.02900/) (2024)
- [Understanding the performance gap between online and offline alignment algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.08448/) (2024)
- [LiPO: Listwise Preference Optimization through Learning-to-Rank](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01878/) (2024)
- [Human Alignment of Large Language Models through Online Preference Optimisation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.08635/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12501/) (2025)
- [Learning Parametric Distributions from Samples and Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23557/) (2025)
- [Reliable Neural-Codec Text-to-Speech by ASR Self-Verification and Distillation: Near-Zero Catastrophic Failures Across Models and Codecs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.18323/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Direct Alignment Algorithms (DAAs) simplify LLM alignment by directly optimizing policies, bypassing reward modeling and RL. While DAAs differ in their use of SFT (one-stage vs. two-stage) and the scalar score they optimize (likelihood vs. odds ratios), the key performance drivers remain underexplored. We present a systematic comparison and analyze a previously overlooked axis - the ranking objective (pairwise vs. pointwise). To isolate this factor, we propose a unified training framework across DAAs by (i) converting one-stage methods (ORPO, ASFT) into a two-stage pipeline with an explicit SFT phase and (ii) introducing a β parameter that places all methods in the same hyperparameter space and improves the quality of odds-ratio DAAs (ORPO, ASFT). Under this setup, the ranking objective emerges as the primary determinant of alignment quality, whereas the particular scalar score (policy-reference ratio vs. odds ratio) is secondary. We corroborate this on instruction-following tasks and further confirm it on math-reasoning benchmarks across model scales. Evidence suggests that this stems from how these objectives interact with prompt-specific biases, supported both by strictly controlled experiments and by observations on real data. Our findings underscore the need for nuanced evaluations in DAA research to avoid oversimplified claims of superiority.