# Understanding the Performance Gap in Preference Learning: A Dichotomy of RLHF and DPO

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19770 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19770/

## Key facts

- Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reward modeling and RLHF, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 54 of its 70 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 May 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Reward modeling and RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/reward-modeling-and-rlhf/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 54)

- [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)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.08593/) (2019)
- [WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.09332/) (2021)
- [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)
- [BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.04657/) (2023)
- [Intrinsic Dimensionality Explains the Effectiveness of Language Model Fine-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.13255/) (2020)
- [Process Reinforcement through Implicit Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01456/) (2025)
- [Contrastive Preference Optimization: Pushing the Boundaries of LLM Performance in Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08417/) (2024)
- [Iterative Preference Learning from Human Feedback: Bridging Theory and Practice for RLHF under KL-Constraint](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.11456/) (2023)
- [Statistical Rejection Sampling Improves Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06657/) (2023)
- [RLHF Workflow: From Reward Modeling to Online RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.07863/) (2024)
- [Is DPO Superior to PPO for LLM Alignment? A Comprehensive Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.10719/) (2024)
- [Direct Language Model Alignment from Online AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04792/) (2024)
- [Principled Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback from Pairwise or K-wise Comparisons](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11270/) (2023)
- [From r to Q^*: Your Language Model is Secretly a Q-Function](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.12358/) (2024)
- [Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14367/) (2024)
- [Rewards-in-Context: Multi-objective Alignment of Foundation Models with Dynamic Preference Adjustment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10207/) (2024)
- [Secrets of RLHF in Large Language Models Part II: Reward Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06080/) (2024)
- [Free Process Rewards without Process Labels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.01981/) (2024)
- [A Minimaximalist Approach to Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04056/) (2024)
- [Beyond One-Preference-Fits-All Alignment: Multi-Objective Direct Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03708/) (2023)
- [Provably Mitigating Overoptimization in RLHF: Your SFT Loss is Implicitly an Adversarial Regularizer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.16436/) (2024)
- [Unpacking DPO and PPO: Disentangling Best Practices for Learning from Preference Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.09279/) (2024)
- [Exploratory Preference Optimization: Harnessing Implicit Q*-Approximation for Sample-Efficient RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.21046/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Inverse Reinforcement Learning Meets Large Language Model Post-Training: Basics, Advances, and Opportunities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.13158/) (2025)
- [Why is Your Language Model a Poor Implicit Reward Model?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.07981/) (2025)
- [Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback: A Statistical Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.02507/) (2026)
- [Why DPO is a Misspecified Estimator and How to Fix It](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.20413/) (2025)
- [Conditional Equivalence of DPO and RLHF: Implicit Assumption, Failure Modes, and Provable Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.20834/) (2026)
- [Towards Efficient Online Exploration for Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.22633/) (2025)
- [From RLHF to Direct Alignment: A Theoretical Unification of Preference Learning for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.06108/) (2026)
- [Disentangling Deception and Hallucination Failures in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.14529/) (2026)
- [DDO-RM: Distribution-Level Policy Improvement after Reward Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.11119/) (2026)
- [Improving LLM Collaboration via Multi-Agent Preference Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.32827/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We present a fine-grained theoretical analysis of the performance gap between two-stage reinforcement learning from human feedback~(RLHF) and direct preference optimization~(DPO). Our study decomposes this gap into two sources: the explicit representation gap under exact optimization and the implicit representation gap under finite samples. In the exact optimization setting, we characterize how the relative capacities of the reward and policy model classes influence the final policy qualities. We show that RLHF, DPO, or online DPO can outperform one another depending on type of model mis-specifications. Notably, online DPO can outperform both RLHF and standard DPO when the reward and policy model classes are isomorphic and both mis-specified. In the approximate optimization setting, we provide a concrete construction where the ground-truth reward is sparse and show that RLHF requires significantly fewer samples than DPO to recover an effective reward model, highlighting a statistical advantage of two-stage learning. Together, these results provide a comprehensive understanding of the performance gap between RLHF and DPO under various settings, and offer practical insights into when each method is preferred.