# Finding the Sweet Spot: Preference Data Construction for Scaling Preference Optimization

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.16825 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.16825/

## Key facts

- Cited by 9 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 45 of its 63 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 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 45)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [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)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07830/) (2019)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10560/) (2022)
- [Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.12712/) (2023)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14734/) (2024)
- [On-Policy Distillation of Language Models: Learning from Self-Generated Mistakes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13649/) (2023)
- [A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12036/) (2023)
- [Enhancing Chat Language Models by Scaling High-quality Instructional Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14233/) (2023)
- [Distilling Step-by-Step! Outperforming Larger Language Models with Less Training Data and Smaller Model Sizes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.02301/) (2023)
- [OpenAssistant Conversations -- Democratizing Large Language Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.07327/) (2023)
- [RAFT: Reward rAnked FineTuning for Generative Foundation Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06767/) (2023)
- [Safe RLHF: Safe Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12773/) (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)
- [Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deep](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.05946/) (2024)
- [UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01377/) (2023)
- [Fine-Grained Human Feedback Gives Better Rewards for Language Model Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01693/) (2023)
- [Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12845/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [What Matters in Data for DPO?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.18312/) (2025)
- [Value Drifts: Tracing Value Alignment During LLM Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.26707/) (2025)
- [Understanding the Impact of Sampling Quality in Direct Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.04272/) (2025)
- [CM-Align: Consistency-based Multilingual Alignment for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.08541/) (2025)
- [An Empirical Study on Preference Tuning Generalization and Diversity Under Domain Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.05882/) (2026)
- [Fine-Tuning LLMs with Fine-Grained Human Feedback on Text Spans](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.23693/) (2025)
- [Revisiting Self-Play Preference Optimization: On the Role of Prompt Difficulty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05534/) (2025)
- [CroCo: Cross-Lingual Contrastive Preference Tuning on Self-Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.26293/) (2026)
- [MADS: Model-Aware Diverse Core Set Selection for Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.30857/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Iterative data generation and model retraining are widely used to align large language models (LLMs). It typically involves a policy model to generate on-policy responses and a reward model to guide training data selection. Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) further enhances this process by constructing preference pairs of chosen and rejected responses. In this work, we aim to scale up the number of on-policy samples via repeated random sampling to improve alignment performance. Conventional practice selects the sample with the highest reward as chosen and the lowest as rejected for DPO. However, our experiments reveal that this strategy leads to a decline in performance as the sample size increases. To address this, we investigate preference data construction through the lens of underlying normal distribution of sample rewards. We categorize the reward space into seven representative points and systematically explore all 21 (C72) pairwise combinations. Through evaluations on four models using AlpacaEval 2, we find that selecting the rejected response at reward position μ - 2σ rather than the minimum reward, is crucial for optimal performance. We finally introduce a scalable preference data construction strategy that consistently enhances model performance as the sample scale increases.