Understanding the Performance Gap in Preference Learning: A Dichotomy of RLHF and DPO
Ruizhe Shi, Minhak Song, Runlong Zhou, Zihan Zhang, Maryam Fazel, Simon Du
Abstract
We present a fine-grained theoretical analysis of the performance gap between twostage reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and direct preference optimization (DPO). Our study decomposes this gap into two sources: the explicit representation gap under exact optimization and the implicit representation gap under finite samples. In the exact optimization setting, we characterize how the relative capacities of the reward and policy model classes influence the final policy qualities. We show that RLHF, DPO, or online DPO can outperform one another depending on type of model mis-specifications. Notably, online DPO can outperform both RLHF and standard DPO when the reward and policy model classes are isomorphic and both mis-specified. In the approximate optimization setting, we provide a concrete construction where the ground-truth reward is sparse and show that RLHF requires significantly fewer samples than DPO to recover an effective reward model, highlighting a statistical advantage of two-stage learning. Together, these results provide a comprehensive understanding of the performance gap between RLHF and DPO under various settings, and offer practical insights into when each method is preferred. * Equal contribution : Work done while Minhak Song was visiting the University of Washington.
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 c3f195fe-0ade-473f-a44d-995175c0a0b7Cited by top-tier papers2
- Why DPO is a Misspecified Estimator and How to Fix ItAditya Gopalan, Sayak Ray Chowdhury, Debangshu BanerjeeICLR 2026 · 4 citations
- Conditional Equivalence of DPO and RLHF: Assumptions, Failure Modes, and Provable AlignmentYonggang Zhang, Zhiqin Yang, Wei Xue, Dong Fang et al.ICML 2026
Builds on28
- 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
- Contrastive Preference Optimization: Pushing the Boundaries of LLM Performance in Machine TranslationHaoran Xu, Amr Sharaf, Yunmo Chen, Weiting Tan et al.ICML 2024 · 447 citations
- Iterative Preference Learning from Human Feedback: Bridging Theory and Practice for RLHF under KL-constraintWei Xiong, Hanze Dong, Chenlu Ye, Ziqi Wang et al.ICML 2024 · 346 citations
- Statistical Rejection Sampling Improves Preference OptimizationTianqi Liu, Yao Zhao, Rishabh Joshi, Misha Khalman et al.ICLR 2024 · 346 citations
Related papers
- Reward Model Learning vs. Direct Policy Optimization: A Comparative Analysis of Learning from Human PreferencesAndi Nika, Debmalya Mandal, Parameswaran Kamalaruban, Georgios Tzannetos et al.ICML 2024 · 22 citations
- Zeroth-Order Policy Gradient for Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback without Reward InferenceQining Zhang, Lei YingICLR 2025
- Exploratory Preference Optimization: Harnessing Implicit Q*-Approximation for Sample-Efficient RLHFTengyang Xie, Dylan J. Foster, Akshay Krishnamurthy, Corby Rosset et al.ICLR 2025
- All Roads Lead to Likelihood: The Value of Reinforcement Learning in Fine-TuningGokul Swamy, Sanjiban Choudhury, Wen Sun, Steven Wu et al.ICLR 2026 · 66 citations
- Policy-labeled Preference Learning: Is Preference Enough for RLHF?Taehyun Cho, Seokhun Ju, Seungyub Han, Dohyeong Kim et al.ICML 2025
