# Adaptive Preference Optimization with Uncertainty-aware Utility Anchor

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.10515 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.10515/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 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 21 of its 36 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Sep 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, 21 of 21)

- [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)
- [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 Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07830/) (2019)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (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)
- [ORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07691/) (2024)
- [From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipeline](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11939/) (2024)
- [Contrastive Preference Optimization: Pushing the Boundaries of LLM Performance in Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08417/) (2024)
- [Is Pessimism Provably Efficient for Offline RL?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.15085/) (2020)
- [Disentangling Length from Quality in Direct Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.19159/) (2024)
- [RewardBench 2: Advancing Reward Model Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01937/) (2025)
- [Provably Robust DPO: Aligning Language Models with Noisy Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.00409/) (2024)
- [Robust Preference Optimization through Reward Model Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.19316/) (2024)
- [Decision-Making Behavior Evaluation Framework for LLMs under Uncertain Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.05972/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [SCOUT: Active Information Foraging for Long-Text Understanding with Decoupled Epistemic States](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.04496/) (2026)
- [The Flip Side of RLHF: On-Policy Feedback for Reward Model Self-Supervised Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.30888/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Offline preference optimization methods are efficient for large language models (LLMs) alignment. Direct Preference optimization (DPO)-like learning, one of the most popular approaches, stands out for its efficiency in reward modeling. However, these methods typically follow the convention to use Bradley-Terry (BT) reward modeling that faces several critical assumptions, including the requirement for pairwise training data, model distribution shifting, human rationality assumption, etc. To address these limitations, we propose a general framework for offline preference optimization methods, Adaptive Preference Optimization with Utility Anchor (UAPO), which introduces an anchoring function to estimate the uncertainties brought from preference data annotation. Our method enables training even in scenarios where the data is unpaired, significantly enhancing data utilization efficiency. Moreover, the anchor design makes UAPO more robust in the training process. Experimental results demonstrate that UAPO achieves competitive outcomes without the strict dependency on data pairing, paving the way for more flexible and effective preference optimization methods.