Decomposing the Delta: What Do Models Actually Learn from Preference Pairs?
Organizations: Capital One
Abstract
Preference optimization methods such as DPO and KTO are widely used for aligning language models, yet little is understood about what properties of preference data drive downstream reasoning gains. We ask: what aspects of a preference pair improve a reasoning model's performance on general reasoning tasks? We investigate two distinct notions of quality delta in preference data: generator-level delta, arising from the differences in capability between models that generate chosen and rejected reasoning traces, and sample-level delta, arising from differences in judged quality differences within an individual preference pair. To study generator-level delta, we vary the generator's scale and model family, and to study sample-level delta, we employ an LLM-as-a-judge to rate the quality of generated traces along multiple reasoning-quality dimensions. We find that increasing generator-level delta steadily improves performance on out-of-domain reasoning tasks and filtering data by sample-level delta can enable more data-efficient training. Our results suggest a twofold recipe for improving reasoning performance through preference optimization: maximize generator-level delta when constructing preference pairs and exploit sample-level delta to select the most informative training examples.
Figures & tables
| Chosen Rejected | step coherence | factuality | computational precision | strategy coherence | signal-to-noise |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s1-7B vs s1-3B | 0.96 | 1.06 | 0.85 | 0.92 | 0.53 |
| s1-14B vs s1-3B | 1.6 | 1.54 | 1.39 | 1.44 | 0.94 |
| Nemotron-4B vs s1-3B | 1.77 | 1.68 | 1.56 | 1.54 | 0.74 |
| Nemotron-8B vs s1-3B | 2.01 | 1.7 | 1.71 | 1.74 | 1.18 |
| s1-32B vs s1-3B | 2 | 1.71 | 1.67 | 1.76 | 1.21 |
| Nemotron-49B vs s1-3B | 2.08 | 1.77 | 1.69 | 1.81 | 1.34 |
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Cat. | Dimension | Success Criteria | Deduction Triggers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Log. | Factuality | Correctly identifies constants, variables, and constraints. No hallucinations. | Hallucinating data, ignoring explicit constraints. |
| Strategy | Approach is appropriate for problem type; follows coherent sequence. | Inefficient/incorrect theorem, circular logic. | |
| Step Coherence | Valid mathematical transitions; each step follows logically from the previous. | Unjustified leaps, ’magic’ numbers, invalid transformations. | |
| Computational Precision | Zero errors in arithmetic, simplification, or symbolic expansion. | Arithmetic errors, sign errors, typos. | |
| Brev. | Signal-to-Noise | High density of informative steps; minimal meta-commentary or redundancy. | Excessive meta-commentary, irrelevant digressions, circular work. |
| Model | MATH | Minerva | GSM | Olympiad | AMC23 | AIME24 | AIME25 | TheoremQA | GPQA | MMLU-Pro | LiveCode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nemotro-4B | 93.3 | 55.1 | 92.0 | 60.3 | 91.4 | 56.5 | 44.6 | 55.9 | 31.0 | 51.7 | 11.2 |
| Nemotro-8B | 91.2 | 52.9 | 87.6 | 61.0 | 93.3 | 61.0 | 50.8 | 55.6 | 46.6 | 57.7 | 12.1 |
| Nemotro-49B | 94.2 | 57.4 | 95.0 | 63.9 | 94.2 | 60.4 | 52.9 | 63.2 | 62.3 | 77.0 | 27.7 |
| S1 3B | 61.0 | 24.6 | 86.4 | 24.7 | 35.9 | 4.8 | 5.6 | 36.2 | 16.1 | – | 3.6 |
| S1 7B | 80.0 | 45.2 | 91.5 | 44.1 | 59.8 | 18.5 | 20.6 | 51.4 | 28.3 | – | 4.8 |
| S1 14B | 88.4 | 52.9 | 95.0 | 53.5 | 77.2 | 34.8 | 29.8 | 58.6 | 48.9 | – | 7.9 |
Preference Optimization
Preference optimization aligns AI systems with human or task-specific judgments by training them to favor better-ranked outputs.
See all 153 papers