# Reward-Free Code Alignment from Pretrained or Fine-Tuned LLM: Unpacking the Trade-offs for Code Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.28998 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.28998/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Process reward models for reasoning, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 49 of its 66 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Process reward models for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/process-reward-models-for-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 49)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.00796/) (2016)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06261/) (2025)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12950/) (2023)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12186/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14196/) (2024)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [WizardCoder: Empowering Code Large Language Models with Evol-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08568/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.00515/) (2024)
- [An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08747/) (2023)
- [RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00267/) (2023)
- [ORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07691/) (2024)
- [The Stack: 3 TB of permissively licensed source code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.15533/) (2022)
- [CodeT5+: Open Code Large Language Models for Code Understanding and Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.07922/) (2023)
- [GPT4RoI: Instruction Tuning Large Language Model on Region-of-Interest](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03601/) (2023)
- [KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01306/) (2024)
- [Is DPO Superior to PPO for LLM Alignment? A Comprehensive Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.10719/) (2024)
- [Magicoder: Empowering Code Generation with OSS-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.02120/) (2023)
- [Iterative Reasoning Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.19733/) (2024)
- [ClassEval: A Manually-Crafted Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Class-level Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01861/) (2023)
- [Understanding Catastrophic Forgetting in Language Models via Implicit Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.10105/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Model (LLM) alignment trains an LLM using preference data to produce outputs that better meet established quality standards. While LLM alignment techniques are studied for non-coding tasks, we know little about their usefulness for coding tasks. It is unclear whether LLM code alignment could support both functional requirements (producing executable, correct code) and non-functional requirements (code readability, style, maintainability). It is also unknown whether alignment for a code LLM should begin with base pretrained version or the finetuned (i.e., instruction-tuned) version of the LLM. In this paper, we offer insights on the above two research questions by conducting an empirical study. We studied five state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs using two widely used LLM alignment techniques: Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and BoNBoN. For each training record, we created a preference pair as accepted and rejected instances by using the SelfCodeAlign pipeline. DPO and BoNBoN are reward-free models, i.e., they eliminate the need for multiple reward scores for output preferences. We tuned each LLM using the two alignment techniques in two settings: pretrained and finetuned versions of an LLM. We evaluated functional requirements using four SOTA benchmarks (HumanEval+, MBPP+, EvalPerf, EvoEval) and non-functional requirements using the CODAL benchmark, which evaluates code quality across five dimensions derived from software engineering practices. We find that pretrained-to-aligned pathways achieve larger improvements in the aligned variant over its pretrained variant. But the pretrained variant is generally less accurate than its finetuned variant. However, finetuned- to-aligned offers smaller performance improvements or, in some cases, degradation in the aligned variant than its finetuned variant.