# An Empirical Study of SFT-DPO Interaction and Parameterization in Small Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20100 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.20100/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 4 of its 6 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Mar 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [LLM preference optimization methods](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/llm-preference-optimization-methods/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Reliability and Learnability of Human Bandit Feedback for Sequence-to-Sequence Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.10627/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) is widely used after supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to align language models, yet empirical behavior under small backbones and modest data is under-specified. We systematically compare SFT-only, DPO-only, and staged SFT-to-DPO training alongside full fine-tuning (FFT) versus LoRA on a GPT-2-scale decoder, evaluating paraphrase detection and Shakespearean sonnet continuation. DPO yields small, task-dependent gains over strong SFT and can match competitive SFT accuracy without a warm start when the preference construction closely parallels the supervised objective. In contrast, parameterization dominates: FFT consistently outperforms LoRA at matched training depth, and LoRA does not reduce wall-clock time on our hardware. These findings indicate that, in this small-scale regime, supervised full-parameter adaptation remains the primary performance lever, while preference optimization and low-rank adaptation provide limited marginal returns.