Direct alignment methods typically train large language models (LLMs) by contrasting the likelihoods of preferred and dispreferred responses. While effective at capturing relative preferences, these methods are widely observed to suppress the absolute likelihoods of example responses. As a result, aligned models can deviate from expected patterns, exhibiting reward hacking effect even without an explicit reward model. This fundamental limitation of contrastive alignment, termed likelihood underdetermination, motivates us to revisit direct preference optimization (DPO)--the seminal direct alignment method. Interestingly, we show that the DPO loss admits a principled decomposition. The reformulated loss not only extends naturally to a broader range of feedback types, but also unveils the root cause of likelihood underdetermination. Specifically, we identify that standard DPO implicitly oversimplifies a regularizer in the reformulated loss; restoring this full term effectively resolves the underdetermination. Building on these insights, we introduce PRoximalized PReference Optimization (PRO), a unified alignment method that accommodates diverse feedback types while eliminating likelihood underdetermination through an efficient approximation of the full regularizer. Empirical evaluations demonstrate the consistent superiority of PRO over existing methods across pairwise, binary and scalar feedback.

We present a theoretical framework showing that popular LLM alignment methods--including RLHF and its variants--can be understood as divergence estimators between aligned (safe or preferred) and unaligned (harmful or less-preferred) distributions. This perspective explains the emergence of separation in the latent space between safe and harmful prompts after alignment. As an application of our general divergence framework, we propose KLDO, a novel KL divergence-based alignment method, and empirically validate its effectiveness. We further show that using compliance-refusal datasets, rather than standard preference-based datasets, leads to stronger separation and improved safety alignment. Finally, to quantify the separation effect, we propose a distance-based metric in the prompt representation space, which also acts as a statistically significant indicator for model safety.

After pre-training, large language models are aligned with human preferences based on pairwise comparisons. State-of-the-art alignment methods (such as PPO-based RLHF and DPO) are built on the assumption of aligning with a single preference model, despite being deployed in settings where users have diverse preferences. As a result, it is not even clear that these alignment methods produce models that satisfy users \emph{on average} --- a minimal requirement for pluralistic alignment. Drawing on social choice theory and modeling users' comparisons through individual Bradley-Terry (BT) models, we introduce an alignment method's \emph{distortion}: the worst-case ratio between the optimal achievable average utility, and the average utility of the learned policy. The notion of distortion helps draw sharp distinctions between alignment methods: \emph{Nash Learning from Human Feedback} achieves the minimax optimal distortion of $(\frac{1}{2} + o(1)) \cdot \beta$ (for the BT temperature $\beta$), robustly across utility distributions, distributions of comparison pairs, and permissible KL divergences from the reference policy. RLHF and DPO, by contrast, suffer $\geq (1 - o(1)) \cdot \beta$ distortion already without a KL constraint, and $e^{\Omega(\beta)}$ or even unbounded distortion in the full setting, depending on how comparison pairs are sampled.

Aligning language models with human preferences is essential for ensuring their safety and reliability. Although most existing approaches assume specific human preference models such as the Bradley-Terry model, this assumption may fail to accurately capture true human preferences, and consequently, these methods lack statistical consistency, i.e., the guarantee that language models converge to the true human preference as the number of samples increases. In contrast, direct density ratio optimization (DDRO) achieves statistical consistency without assuming any human preference models. DDRO models the density ratio between preferred and non-preferred data distributions using the language model, and then optimizes it via density ratio estimation. However, this density ratio is unstable and often diverges, leading to training instability of DDRO. In this paper, we propose a novel alignment method that is both stable and statistically consistent. Our approach is based on the relative density ratio between the preferred data distribution and a mixture of the preferred and non-preferred data distributions. Our approach is stable since this relative density ratio is bounded above and does not diverge. Moreover, it is statistically consistent and yields significantly tighter convergence guarantees than DDRO. We experimentally show its effectiveness with Qwen 2.5 and Llama 3.

With the rapid development of large language models (LLMs) and ever-evolving practical requirements, finding an efficient and effective alignment method has never been more critical. However, the tension between the complexity of current alignment methods and the need for rapid iteration in deployment scenarios necessitates the development of a model-agnostic alignment approach that can operate under these constraints. In this paper, we introduce Aligner, a novel and simple alignment paradigm that learns the correctional residuals between preferred and dispreferred answers using a small model. Designed as a model-agnostic, plug-and-play module, Aligner can be directly applied to various open-source and API-based models with only one-off training, making it suitable for rapid iteration. Notably, Aligner can be applied to any powerful, large-scale upstream models. Moreover, it can even iteratively bootstrap the upstream models using corrected responses as synthetic human preference data, breaking through the model's performance ceiling. Our experiments demonstrate performance improvements by deploying the same Aligner model across 11 different LLMs, evaluated on the 3H dimensions (helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty). Specifically, Aligner-7B has achieved an average improvement of 68.9% in helpfulness and 22.8% in harmlessness across the tested LLMs while also effectively reducing hallucination. In the Alpaca-Eval leaderboard, stacking Aligner-2B on GPT-4 Turbo improved its LC Win Rate from 55.0% to 58.3%, surpassing GPT-4 Omni's 57.5% Win Rate (community report).

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Nevertheless, such designs will dramatically increase the computational burden, and cannot deal with large motions. Therefore, we propose a new and efficient alignment method called patch alignment, which aligns image patches instead ofpixels.

The safe and effective deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) involves a critical step called alignment, which ensures that the model's responses are in accordance with human preferences. Prevalent alignment techniques, such as DPO, PPO and their variants, align LLMs by changing the pre-trained model weights during a phase called post-training. While predominant, these post-training methods add substantial complexity before LLMs can be deployed. Inference-time alignment methods avoid the complex post-training step and instead bias the generation towards responses that are aligned with human preferences. The best-known inference-time alignment method, called Best-of-N, is as effective as the state-of-the-art post-training procedures. Unfortunately, Best-of-N requires vastly more resources at inference time than standard decoding strategies, which makes it computationally not viable. In this work, we introduce Speculative Rejection, a computationally-viable inference-time alignment algorithm. It generates high-scoring responses according to a given reward model, like Best-of-N does, while being between 16 to 32 times more computationally efficient.