Energy-Based Preference Model Offers Better Offline Alignment than the Bradley-Terry Preference Model
Yuzhong Hong, Hanshan Zhang, Junwei Bao, Hongfei Jiang, Yang Song
Abstract
Since the debut of DPO, it has been shown that aligning a target LLM with human preferences via the KL-constrained RLHF loss is mathematically equivalent to a special kind of reward modeling task. Concretely, the task requires: 1) using the target LLM to parameterize the reward model, and 2) tuning the reward model so that it has a 1:1 linear relationship with the true reward. However, we identify a significant issue: the DPO loss might have multiple minimizers, of which only one satisfies the required linearity condition. The problem arises from a well-known issue of the underlying Bradley-Terry preference model: it does not always have a unique maximum likelihood estimator (MLE). Consequently, the minimizer of the RLHF loss might be unattainable because it is merely one among many minimizers of the DPO loss. As a better alternative, we propose an energy-based model (EBM) that always has a unique MLE, inherently satisfying the linearity requirement. To approximate the MLE in practice, we propose a contrastive loss named Energy Preference Alignment (EPA), wherein each positive sample is contrasted against one or more strong negatives as well as many free weak negatives. Theoretical properties of our EBM enable the approximation error of EPA to almost surely vanish when a sufficient number of negatives are used. Empirically, we demonstrate that EPA consistently delivers better performance on open benchmarks compared to DPO, thereby showing the superiority of our EBM.
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.
Cited by top-tier papers4
- GVPO: Group Variance Policy Optimization for Large Language Model Post-TrainingKaichen Zhang, Yuzhong Hong, Junwei Bao, Hongfei Jiang et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 35 citations
- Doubly Robust Alignment for Large Language ModelsErhan Xu, Kai Ye, Hongyi Zhou, Luhan Zhu et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 14 citations
- Alignment-Aware DecodingFrédéric Berdoz, Luca Lanzendörfer, René Caky, Roger WattenhoferICML 2026 · 1 citation
- Transitivity Meets Cyclicity: Explicit Preference Decomposition for Dynamic Large Language Model AlignmentYucong Huang, Xiucheng Li, Kaiqi Zhao, Jing LiICML 2026
Builds on21
- 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
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- Self-Play Fine-Tuning Converts Weak Language Models to Strong Language ModelsZixiang Chen, Yihe Deng, Huizhuo Yuan, Kaixuan Ji et al.ICML 2024 · 527 citations
- RRHF: Rank Responses to Align Language Models with Human FeedbackHongyi Yuan, Zheng Yuan, Chuanqi Tan, Wei Wang et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 515 citations
Related papers
- Displacement-Resistant Extensions of DPO with Nonconvex -DivergencesIdan Pipano, Shoham Sabach, Kavosh Asadi, Mohammad GhavamzadehICLR 2026
- Reward Alignment Optimization: A Direct Point-wise Alignment ApproachZelin Li, Jia Leng, Dawei Song, Yangen HuACL 2026
- Cal-DPO: Calibrated Direct Preference Optimization for Language Model AlignmentTeng Xiao, Yige Yuan, Huaisheng Zhu, Mingxiao Li et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 76 citations
- Proximalized Preference Optimization for Diverse Feedback Types: A Decomposed Perspective on DPOKaiyang Guo, Yinchuan Li, Zhitang ChenNeurIPS 2025 · 7 citations
- Distortion of AI Alignment: Does Preference Optimization Optimize for Preferences?Paul Gölz, Nika Haghtalab, Kunhe YangNeurIPS 2025 · 29 citations
