Lune

ICLR2025Top-tier venue

Unintentional Unalignment: Likelihood Displacement in Direct Preference Optimization

Noam Razin, Sadhika Malladi, Adithya Bhaskar, Danqi Chen, Sanjeev Arora, Boris Hanin

2025Year
44Top-tier citations

Abstract

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and its variants are increasingly used for aligning language models with human preferences. Although these methods are designed to teach a model to generate preferred responses more frequently relative to dispreferred responses, prior work has observed that the likelihood of preferred responses often decreases during training. The current work sheds light on the causes and implications of this counterintuitive phenomenon, which we term likelihood displacement. We demonstrate that likelihood displacement can be catastrophic, shifting probability mass from preferred responses to responses with an opposite meaning. As a simple example, training a model to prefer No over Never can sharply increase the probability of Yes. Moreover, when aligning the model to refuse unsafe prompts, we show that such displacement can unintentionally lead to unalignment, by shifting probability mass from preferred refusal responses to harmful responses (e.g., reducing the refusal rate of Llama-3-8B-Instruct from 74.4% to 33.4%). We theoretically characterize that likelihood displacement is driven by preferences that induce similar embeddings, as measured by a centered hidden embedding similarity (CHES) score. Empirically, the CHES score enables identifying which training samples contribute most to likelihood displacement in a given dataset. Filtering out these samples effectively mitigated unintentional unalignment in our experiments. More broadly, our results highlight the importance of curating data with sufficiently distinct preferences, for which we believe the CHES score may prove valuable. 1 Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025 Tokens Increasing Most in Probability Model y + y - π θ (y + |x) Decrease Benign Catastrophic OLMo-1B Yes No 0.69 (0.96 → 0.27) Yes, yes -No Never 0.84 (0.85 → 0.01) No Yes, Yes, yes Gemma-2B Yes No 0.22 (0.99 → 0.77) Yes, yes -No Never 0.21 (0.65 → 0.44) no, No yes, Yeah Llama-3-8B Yes No 0.96 (0.99 → 0.03) yes, yes, Yes -Sure Yes 0.59 (0.98 → 0.39) sure, Sure Maybe, No, Never

Ask about this paper

Your agent reads all of it.

Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.

Questions to start from

Your agent calls

Luneget_paper_fulltext

Ask in Lune

Free to start. No credit card required.

lune papers fulltext 0d314048-2ec0-4763-8bd5-c68d27ddd71d

Cited by top-tier papers44

Ask how each one uses it

Builds on37

Related papers

Dusk over the sea between two cliffs drawn in fine vertical lines