Normalized Rewards for Preference Optimization
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → LLM preference optimization methods
Abstract (arXiv)
Direct Alignment Algorithms (DAAs) such as DPO have become a common way to post-train and align LLMs with human preferences. However, DAAs have been observed to over-optimize their implicit reward model and decrease the likelihood of preferred responses. This results in a decrease in the total likelihood assigned to responses seen in the preference dataset, potentially resulting in undesirable behavior. To counteract this undesired side-effect of DAAs, we examine the effect of using objectives that add a regularization term to maintain the total length-normalized probabilities of the chosen and rejected responses. To better understand over-optimization, we investigate how response likelihood changes are distributed over the tokens with and without regularization. We find that a significant portion of the likelihood changes are due to a small set of outlier tokens, which explains how DAAs improve generation quality despite decreasing the likelihoods of chosen responses. We apply the proposed regularization to reference-based (DPO) and reference-free (SimPO) methods and find (1) improved trade-offs between generation quality and general benchmark capability and (2) improvements in reward modeling across datasets. For example, on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, we see both a >20% relative increase in AlpacaEval2 scores and >9% relative performance gains on general benchmarks. Additionally, we find that the added regularization term effectively mitigates the amount of displacement within preferred responses overall, and for the outlier tokens specifically, by utilizing low-likelihood tokens.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 35 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jun 2026.
Builds on
35 of 44 references.
Closest ancestors · 20
Same direction, newest first
- 2025AMPO: Active Multi-Preference Optimization for Self-play Preference Selection25 Feb
- 2025AlphaPO: Reward Shape Matters for LLM Alignment7 Jan
- 2024Unintentional Unalignment: Likelihood Displacement in Direct Preference Optimization11 Oct
- 2024RainbowPO: A Unified Framework for Combining Improvements in Preference Optimization5 Oct
- 2024Correcting the Mythos of KL-Regularization: Direct Alignment without Overoptimization via Chi-Squared Preference Optimization18 Jul
- 2024WPO: Enhancing RLHF with Weighted Preference Optimization17 Jun
- 2024Robust Preference Optimization through Reward Model Distillation29 May
- 2024SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward23 May
- 2024ORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model12 Mar
- 2024Provably Robust DPO: Aligning Language Models with Noisy Feedback1 Mar
- 2024Smaug: Fixing Failure Modes of Preference Optimisation with DPO-Positive20 Feb
- 2024Generalized Preference Optimization: A Unified Approach to Offline Alignment8 Feb
8 more
- 2024Noise Contrastive Alignment of Language Models with Explicit Rewards8 Feb
- 2024KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization2 Feb
- 2023The Unlocking Spell on Base LLMs: Rethinking Alignment via In-Context Learning4 Dec
- 2023A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferences18 Oct
- 2023Beyond Reverse KL: Generalizing Direct Preference Optimization with Diverse Divergence Constraints28 Sep
- 2023Statistical Rejection Sampling Improves Preference Optimization13 Sep
- 2023Mitigating the Alignment Tax of RLHF12 Sep
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback4 Mar
Other references · 15
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
- 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 865
- 2024OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Modelscited by 599
- 2024Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deepcited by 450
- 2023SLiC-HF: Sequence Likelihood Calibration with Human Feedbackcited by 395
- 2023Iterative Preference Learning from Human Feedback: Bridging Theory and Practice for RLHF under KL-Constraintcited by 346
- 2018Reward learning from human preferences and demonstrations in Ataricited by 314
- 2024Self-Play Preference Optimization for Language Model Alignmentcited by 228
- 2024Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Datacited by 184
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Direct Preference Optimization with Rating Information: Practical Algorithms and Provable Gains
- 2025Mitigating Reward Over-optimization in Direct Alignment Algorithms with Importance Sampling
- 2024Understanding Likelihood Over-optimisation in Direct Alignment Algorithms
- 2025Finding the Sweet Spot: Preference Data Construction for Scaling Preference Optimization
- 2025Towards Bridging the Reward-Generation Gap in Direct Alignment Algorithms
- 2025What Matters in Data for DPO?
- 2025Proximalized Preference Optimization for Diverse Feedback Types: A Decomposed Perspective on DPO
- 2024SeRA: Self-Reviewing and Alignment of Large Language Models using Implicit Reward Margins