Unintentional Unalignment: Likelihood Displacement in Direct Preference Optimization
Noam Razin, Sadhika Malladi, Adithya Bhaskar, Danqi Chen, Sanjeev Arora, Boris Hanin
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.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 0d314048-2ec0-4763-8bd5-c68d27ddd71dCited by top-tier papers44
- Normalized Rewards for Preference OptimizationShawn Im, Federico Danieli, Skyler Seto, Barry-John Theobald et al.ICML 2026 · 571 citations
- What Makes a Reward Model a Good Teacher? An Optimization PerspectiveNoam Razin, Zixuan Wang, Hubert Strauss, Stanley Wei et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 73 citations
- On the Effect of Negative Gradient in Group Relative Deep Reinforcement OptimizationWenlong Deng, Yi Ren, Muchen Li, Danica J. Sutherland et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 36 citations
- DenseDPO: Fine-Grained Temporal Preference Optimization for Video Diffusion ModelsZiyi Wu, Anil Kag, Ivan Skorokhodov, Willi Menapace et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 36 citations
- Exploration vs Exploitation: Rethinking RLVR through Clipping, Entropy, and Spurious RewardPeter Chen, Xiaopeng Li, Ziniu Li, Wotao Yin et al.ICLR 2026 · 28 citations
Builds on37
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 10,924 citations
- SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free RewardYu Meng, Mengzhou Xia, Danqi ChenNeurIPS 2024 · 1,203 citations
- Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!Xiangyu Qi, Yi Zeng, Tinghao Xie, Pin-Yu Chen et al.ICLR 2024 · 1,104 citations
- AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human FeedbackYann Dubois, Chen Xuechen Li, Rohan Taori, Tianyi Zhang et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 948 citations
Related papers
- AlphaPO: Reward Shape Matters for LLM AlignmentAman Gupta, Shao Tang, Qingquan Song, Sirou Zhu et al.ICML 2025
- 3D-Properties: Identifying Challenges in DPO and Charting a Path ForwardYuzi Yan, Yibo Miao, Jialian Li, Yipin Zhang et al.ICLR 2025
- TIS-DPO: Token-level Importance Sampling for Direct Preference Optimization With Estimated WeightsAiwei Liu, Haoping Bai, Zhiyun Lu, Yanchao Sun et al.ICLR 2025
- What Matters in Data for DPO?Yu Pan, Zhongze Cai, Huaiyang Zhong, Guanting Chen et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 13 citations
- Sharpness-Aware Minimization in Logit Space Efficiently Enhances Direct Preference OptimizationHaocheng Luo, Zehang Deng, Thanh-Toan Do, Mehrtash Harandi et al.ICLR 2026 · 1 citation
