mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

From Noisy Traces to Stable Gradients: Bias-Variance Optimized Preference Optimization for Aligning Large Reasoning Models

arXiv 2510.05095 ↗First posted 6 Oct 2025cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Large reasoning models (LRMs) generate intermediate reasoning traces before producing final answers, yielding strong gains on multi-step and mathematical tasks. Yet aligning LRMs with human preferences, a crucial prerequisite for model deployment, remains underexplored. The statistically correct objective for preference alignment requires marginalizing over reasoning traces, but this computation is intractable in practice. A common workaround optimizes a single sampled trajectory, which introduces substantial gradient variance from stochastic trace sampling. To address this challenge, we frame preference optimization for LRMs through the lens of the bias--variance trade-off and propose Bias--Variance Optimized Preference Optimization (BVPO), a simple, drop-in method that mixes two gradient estimators: a high-variance trace-based estimator and a low-variance empty-trace estimator obtained by disabling reasoning trace generation. Our theory shows that BVPO strictly reduces trace-induced variance for any nontrivial mixture, provides a closed-form choice of the mixing weight that minimizes mean-squared error relative to the true marginal gradient, and under standard smoothness and step-size conditions, tightens classical convergence bounds for stochastic gradient descent. Empirically, BVPO improves alignment over the best baseline by up to 7.8 points on AlpacaEval~2 and 6.8 points on Arena-Hard. Despite being trained only on general conversational data, BVPO also boosts reasoning performance for base models by up to 4.0 points on the average of six math reasoning benchmarks. These results identify variance from trace sampling as a key bottleneck and demonstrate that directly optimizing the bias--variance trade-off yields more stable training and stronger overall performance.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 11 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2025.

Builds on

11 of 34 references.

References · 11

  1. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
  2. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
  3. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  4. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,146
  5. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
  6. 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
  7. 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,124
  8. 2024OpenAI o1 System Cardcited by 1,220
  9. 2024Back to Basics: Revisiting REINFORCE Style Optimization for Learning from Human Feedback in LLMscited by 103
  10. 2020On the Convergence of SGD with Biased Gradientscited by 79
  11. 2024Aligning CodeLLMs with Direct Preference Optimizationcited by 9

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Not All Preferences Deserve Gradients: Understanding Gradient Utility in Offline Reasoning Alignment
  2. 2026Decomposing the Delta: What Do Models Actually Learn from Preference Pairs?
  3. 2025Turning Drift into Constraint: Robust Reasoning Alignment in Non-Stationary Multi-Stream Environments
  4. 2024PORT: Preference Optimization on Reasoning Traces
  5. 2025Assessing Judging Bias in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Study
  6. 2025BPO: Revisiting Preference Modeling in Direct Preference Optimization
  7. 2026Mining or Synthesis? Rethinking Exploration Efficiency in Iterative Alignment of Mathematical Reasoning
  8. 2025Pruning Long Chain-of-Thought of Large Reasoning Models via Small-Scale Preference Optimization