Shallow Preference Signals: Large Language Model Aligns Even Better with Truncated Data?
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → LLM preference optimization methods
Abstract (arXiv)
Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences remains a key challenge in AI. Preference-based optimization methods, such as Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), rely on human-annotated datasets to improve alignment. In this work, we identify a crucial property of the existing learning method: the distinguishing signal obtained in preferred responses is often concentrated in the early tokens. We refer to this as shallow preference signals. To explore this property, we systematically truncate preference datasets at various points and train both reward models and DPO models on the truncated data. Surprisingly, models trained on truncated datasets, retaining only the first half or fewer tokens, achieve comparable or even superior performance to those trained on full datasets. For example, a reward model trained on the Skywork-Reward-Preference-80K-v0.2 dataset outperforms the full dataset when trained on a 40% truncated dataset. This pattern is consistent across multiple datasets, suggesting the widespread presence of shallow preference signals. We further investigate the distribution of the reward signal through decoding strategies. We consider two simple decoding strategies motivated by the shallow reward signal observation, namely Length Control Decoding and KL Threshold Control Decoding, which leverage shallow preference signals to optimize the trade-off between alignment and computational efficiency. The performance is even better, which again validates our hypothesis. The phenomenon of shallow preference signals highlights potential issues in LLM alignment: existing alignment methods often focus on aligning only the initial tokens of responses, rather than considering the full response. This could lead to discrepancies with real-world human preferences, resulting in suboptimal alignment performance.
Key facts. Cited by 5 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 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 May 2025.
Builds on
45 of 59 references.
Closest ancestors · 8
Same direction, newest first
- 2024TreeBoN: Enhancing Inference-Time Alignment with Speculative Tree-Search and Best-of-N Sampling18 Oct
- 2024Disentangling Length from Quality in Direct Preference Optimization28 Mar
- 2024Generalized Preference Optimization: A Unified Approach to Offline Alignment8 Feb
- 2023The Unlocking Spell on Base LLMs: Rethinking Alignment via In-Context Learning4 Dec
- 2023A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferences18 Oct
- 2023Statistical Rejection Sampling Improves Preference Optimization13 Sep
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback4 Mar
- 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment1 Dec
Other references · 37
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
- 2023WizardMath: Empowering Mathematical Reasoning for Large Language Models via Reinforced Evol-Instructcited by 625
- 2023LLM-Blender: Ensembling Large Language Models with Pairwise Ranking and Generative Fusioncited by 564
- 2024RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modelingcited by 499
- 2024Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deepcited by 472
- 2023SLiC-HF: Sequence Likelihood Calibration with Human Feedbackcited by 401
- 2024Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Expertscited by 376
- 2023Iterative Preference Learning from Human Feedback: Bridging Theory and Practice for RLHF under KL-Constraintcited by 350
25 more
- 2022The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Modelscited by 328
- 2024Skywork-Reward: Bag of Tricks for Reward Modeling in LLMscited by 327
- 2021Understanding Dataset Difficulty with V-Usable Informationcited by 291
- 2024RLHF Workflow: From Reward Modeling to Online RLHFcited by 267
- 2023Nash Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 224
- 2022Defining and Characterizing Reward Hackingcited by 203
- 2020Implementation Matters in Deep Policy Gradients: A Case Study on PPO and TRPOcited by 186
- 2022The Carbon Footprint of Machine Learning Training Will Plateau, Then Shrinkcited by 184
- 2018RUDDER: Return Decomposition for Delayed Rewardscited by 173
- 2024A Minimaximalist Approach to Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 144
- 2023HelpSteer: Multi-attribute Helpfulness Dataset for SteerLMcited by 142
- 2024MaxMin-RLHF: Alignment with Diverse Human Preferencescited by 123
- 2024GLoRe: When, Where, and How to Improve LLM Reasoning via Global and Local Refinementscited by 103
- 2024OffsetBias: Leveraging Debiased Data for Tuning Evaluatorscited by 94
- 2019On the Weaknesses of Reinforcement Learning for Neural Machine Translationcited by 82
- 2024Process Reward Model with Q-Value Rankingscited by 80
- 2024InfoRM: Mitigating Reward Hacking in RLHF via Information-Theoretic Reward Modelingcited by 79
- 2024Correlated Proxies: A New Definition and Improved Mitigation for Reward Hackingcited by 50
- 2024From Lists to Emojis: How Format Bias Affects Model Alignmentcited by 49
- 2023Predictive Pipelined Decoding: A Compute-Latency Trade-off for Exact LLM Decodingcited by 40
- 2024SAM Decoding: Speculative Decoding via Suffix Automatoncited by 39
- 2022Learning General World Models in a Handful of Reward-Free Deploymentscited by 12
- 2024Think Big, Generate Quick: LLM-to-SLM for Fast Autoregressive Decodingcited by 11
- 2024S2D: Sorted Speculative Decoding For More Efficient Deployment of Nested Large Language Modelscited by 1
- 2024When Can Proxies Improve the Sample Complexity of Preference Learning?cited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 3.
5 papers.
- 2026Inference-time Alignment via Sparse Junction Steeringcited by 2
- 2025Bias-Restrained Prefix Representation Finetuning for Mathematical Reasoningcited by 1
- 2025Gaming the Answer Matcher: Examining the Impact of Text Manipulation on Automated Judgmentcited by 0
- 2026A Survey of Reinforcement Learning for Large Language Models under Data Scarcity: Challenges and Solutionscited by 0
- 2026A Coin Flip Per Token: Bernoulli Sparse Steering of Large Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026A Coin Flip Per Token: Bernoulli Sparse Steering of Large Language Models6 Jul 2026
- 2026A Survey of Reinforcement Learning for Large Language Models under Data Scarcity: Challenges and Solutions19 Apr 2026
- 2026Inference-time Alignment via Sparse Junction Steering30 Jan 2026
- 2025Gaming the Answer Matcher: Examining the Impact of Text Manipulation on Automated Judgment22 Dec 2025
- 2025Bias-Restrained Prefix Representation Finetuning for Mathematical Reasoning13 Nov 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Reward-Augmented Data Enhances Direct Preference Alignment of LLMs
- 2026From RLHF to Direct Alignment: A Theoretical Unification of Preference Learning for Large Language Models
- 2024Optimizing LLMs with Direct Preferences: A Data Efficiency Perspective
- 2024Secrets of RLHF in Large Language Models Part II: Reward Modeling
- 2026Unbiased Alignment for Large Language Models with Noisy Preferences
- 2024Unified Preference Optimization: Language Model Alignment Beyond the Preference Frontier
- 2024Data-Centric Human Preference with Rationales for Direct Preference Alignment
- 2024West-of-N: Synthetic Preferences for Self-Improving Reward Models