From Soft Targets to Reward Signals: How Assignment and Reward Objectives Interact

We present a formal process to enable non-experts to instantiate and iterate on human-aligned reward functions, i.e. reward functions that adhere to a given preference ordering over trajectories. Given a task described in natural language, our process produces a linear reward function in three steps: distill the task's objectives into a set of fundamental objectives and derive measurable outcome variables that capture those fundamental objectives, select a causally representative subset of outcome variables as the reward terms, and fit weights to those reward terms via preference elicitation. Our contributions describe the first step and formalize the latter two steps. The first is a guided workflow for deriving outcome variables. The second is a reduction of reward term selection to minimum-cost partial cover on a causal DAG, solved in polynomial time via max-flow. The third is a geometric framing of weight fitting as a convex feasibility problem iteratively narrowed by preference queries, solved by existing separation oracle methods. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reward-design method that maintains a deterministically conflict-free feasible weight region, narrowed to a desired tolerance via a separation oracle with O(n log κ) preference queries.

Best-of-$N$ sampling is widely used to construct pairwise preference data: $N$ candidates are drawn from a base distribution, and the best is paired with a rejected response. Despite its widespread use, what Bradley--Terry (BT) reward learning extracts from such data, and how to choose $N$ and the base distribution, remain unclear. We specialize a recent analysis of preference data via its induced conditional distribution to Best-of-$N$. For independent-reference variants, we derive closed-form reward targets as explicit functions of $N$ and the base distribution, and show that they preserve the latent reward ranking. For the practical Best-vs-Random and Best-vs-Worst variants, chosen and rejected responses are coupled through the same candidate set, so exact BT representability generally fails; nevertheless, bounded-class minimizers approach the reference targets as $N$ grows. Although margin and connectivity are known to govern sample efficiency in pairwise preference learning, Best-of-$N$ couples them through $N$ in opposing directions: larger $N$ widens pairwise margins but reduces connectivity. This trade-off yields two design principles: use larger $N$ when preference labels are the bottleneck, smaller $N$ when generation is the bottleneck; and shape the base distribution to place mass between the responses whose comparison matters most at test time. Experiments on synthetic and real preference data support the predicted dependence on sample size and base-distribution shape.

Preference optimization is widely used to align large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, many margin-based methods also suppress the chosen response when they try to suppress the rejected one, and there is no general way to prevent this across different objectives. We address this issue with a unified incentive-score decomposition of preference optimization, revealing that different objectives share the same local update directions and differ only in their scalar weights. This decomposition provides a common framework for analyzing objectives that were previously studied in separate settings. Building on this decomposition, by analyzing the dynamics of the chosen/rejected likelihoods, we identify the disentanglement band (DB), a simple, testable condition that tells us when training can follow the desired path: suppress the loser while preserving the winner, possibly after an early stage. Using the DB, we propose reward calibration (RC), a plug-and-play method that adaptively rebalances the updates for chosen and rejected responses to satisfy the DB, without redesigning the base objective. Empirical results show that RC leads to more disentangled dynamics, with better downstream performance observed across several settings. Our code is available at https://github.com/IceyWuu/DisentangledPreferenceOptimization.