Divergence based Ranked Preference Alignment for LLMs
Organizations: Purdue University · Michigan State University
Abstract
Alignment of large language models typically relies on pairwise preference feedback, though ranked feedback can capture more comprehensive information across multiple responses within a single annotation. However, ranked-preference alignment is underexplored in practice compared to simpler pairwise approaches, potentially resulting in suboptimal behavior. Concurrently, recent research has conceptualized large language model alignment objectives as divergence estimators between aligned (preferred) and unaligned (less-preferred) response distributions, resulting in a family of objectives with an interpretable theoretical foundation and strong empirical performance. This work unifies these perspectives by introducing -RPO, a -divergence objective for ranked preference optimization that extends divergence-based alignment to ranked feedback and recovers pairwise preference alignment as a special case. Our theoretical analysis establishes rank-order consistency, showing that -RPO preserves the underlying preference ordering at convergence. Empirical results indicate that total-variation and reverse-KL variants of the proposed objective consistently outperform ranked-alignment baselines in both ranking and generation quality across Qwen, Llama, & Gemma models ranging from 0.5B to 8B parameters.
Figures & tables
| Divergence | |
|---|---|
| Reverse KL | |
| Total variation |
| Method | Qwen 1.5B | Llama 8B | Gemma 2B | Llama 3B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -RPO-RKL | 70.10 | 51.18 | 69.13 | 88.26 |
| -RPO-TV | 81.24 | 55.27 | 65.84 | 94.84 |
| Mallows-RCPO | 58.80 | 50.80 | 61.73 | 83.16 |
| PL-DPO | 56.50 | 48.57 | 51.30 | 68.91 |
| Divergence | Spearman | Pairwise (%) | Top-1 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reverse KL | 0.1648 (0.0039) | 56.70 (0.16) | 28.94 (0.10) |
| Total variation | 0.1492 (0.0017) | 56.16 (0.08) | 28.08 (0.07) |
| KL | 0.0928 (0.0019) | 53.98 (0.08) | 26.94 (0.29) |
| Pearson | 0.1048 (0.0012) | 54.40 (0.05) | 27.70 (0.26) |
| Squared Hellinger | 0.0937 (0.0005) | 53.96 (0.03) | 27.80 (0.18) |
| Jensen–Shannon | 0.1044 (0.0010) | 54.41 (0.05) | 27.97 (0.16) |
| Method | Qwen2.5 0.5B | Qwen2.5 1.5B | Qwen2.5 7B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base | 0.0314 | -0.0431 | 0.4390 |
| DPO (pairwise) | 0.0996 (0.0014) | 0.0420 (0.0041) | 0.4480 (0.0005) |
| PL-DPO (ranked) | 0.1131 (0.0017) | 0.0471 (0.0045) | 0.4530 (0.0006) |
| -RPO-TV (ranked) | 0.1492 (0.0017) | 0.1288 (0.0035) | 0.4858 (0.0005) |
| -RPO-RKL (ranked) | 0.1648 (0.0039) | 0.1538 (0.0068) | 0.4827 (0.0008) |
| PL-DPO DPO | +0.0135 | +0.0051 | +0.0050 |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Divergence | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KL | ||||
| Reverse KL | ||||
| Pearson | ||||
| Hellinger | ||||
| Jensen–Shannon | ||||
| Total variation |
| Method | Feedback | Aligned | Unaligned |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDO | Pairwise preference | Chosen responses | Rejected responses |
| -GRPO | Scalar reward | Positive-advantage responses | Non-positive-advantage responses |
| -HAL | Pairwise Preference reward | Chosen positive-advantage | Rejected non-positive-advantage |
| -RPO (ours) | Ranked preference | Higher-ranked responses | Lower-ranked responses |
| Divergence | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reverse KL | ||||
| Total variation | ||||
| KL | ||||
| Pearson | ||||
| Squared Hellinger | ||||
| Jensen–Shannon |
| Generator | Temperature | Top- | Max. new tokens |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct | 0.25 | 0.90 | 1,536 |
| Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct | 0.70 | 0.90 | 1,536 |
| Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct | 1.00 | 0.95 | 1,536 |
| Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct | 0.70 | 0.90 | 1,536 |
| Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct | 0.80 | 0.95 | 1,536 |
| Candidate | Mean reward | Mean rank | Top-1 (%) | Bottom (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen 14B, conservative | 18.67 | 2.31 | 31.76 | 2.83 |
| Qwen 7B, balanced | 17.58 | 2.55 | 22.08 | 3.30 |
| Llama 8B, balanced | 17.32 | 2.68 | 28.23 | 8.85 |
| Qwen 7B, diverse | 16.74 | 2.82 | 16.19 | 5.27 |
| Qwen 1.5B, weaker | 4.02 | 4.64 | 1.74 | 79.76 |
| Source | Train | Validation | Test | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evol-Instruct | 395 | 53 | 82 | 530 |
| FLAN | 365 | 59 | 93 | 517 |
| FalseQA | 253 | 33 | 57 | 343 |
| ShareGPT | 303 | 49 | 62 | 414 |
| UltraChat | 359 | 41 | 75 | 475 |
| Total | 1,675 | 235 | 369 | 2,279 |
| Hyperparameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Training epochs | 1 |
| Random seeds | |
| Learning rate | |
| Optimizer | 8-bit AdamW |
| Weight decay | 0.1 |
| LR schedule / warmup | cosine / 0.1 fraction |
| Method | Spearman ( ) | Kendall ( ) | Pairwise (%) ( ) | Top-1 (%) ( ) | Exact match (%) ( ) | MAE ( ) | RMSE ( ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -RPO-RKL | 0.1538 (0.0068) | 0.1316 (0.0058) | 56.58 (0.29) | 27.32 (0.10) | 2.82 (0.11) | 1.4298 (0.0088) | 1.7224 (0.0085) |
| -RPO-TV | 0.1288 (0.0035) | 0.1079 (0.0026) | 55.39 (0.13) | 26.72 (0.24) | 2.87 (0.07) | 1.4448 (0.0037) | 1.7521 (0.0040) |
| PL-DPO | 0.0471 (0.0045) | 0.0441 (0.0036) | 52.21 (0.18) | 24.66 (0.30) | 2.38 (0.05) | 1.5261 (0.0047) | 1.8431 (0.0052) |
| Mallows-RCPO | 0.0394 (0.0111) | 0.0375 (0.0090) | 51.88 (0.45) | 24.12 (0.59) | 2.38 (0.05) | 1.5343 (0.0115) | 1.8533 (0.0122) |
| Base | -0.0431 | -0.0287 | 48.56 | 20.33 | 1.36 | 1.6260 | 1.9557 |
| Method | Spearman ( ) | Kendall ( ) | Pairwise (%) ( ) | Top-1 (%) ( ) | Exact match (%) ( ) | MAE ( ) | RMSE ( ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -RPO-RKL | 0.4827 (0.0008) | 0.3951 (0.0009) | 69.76 (0.04) | 29.76 (0.20) | 5.09 (0.18) | 1.0363 (0.0012) | 1.3261 (0.0018) |
| -RPO-TV | 0.4858 (0.0005) | 0.3989 (0.0006) | 69.95 (0.03) | 28.40 (0.10) | 4.82 (0.13) | 1.0383 (0.0015) | 1.3260 (0.0018) |
| PL-DPO | 0.4530 (0.0006) | 0.3708 (0.0004) | 68.54 (0.02) | 30.46 (0.14) | 4.39 (0.16) | 1.0810 (0.0011) | 1.3680 (0.0010) |
| Mallows-RCPO | 0.4674 (0.0023) | 0.3828 (0.0023) | 69.14 (0.12) | 29.76 (0.23) | 4.28 (0.10) | 1.0606 (0.0036) | 1.3451 (0.0037) |
| Base | 0.4390 | 0.3588 | 67.94 | 29.27 | 2.98 | 1.1003 | 1.3919 |
| Divergence | Spearman | Kendall | Pairwise acc. . | Top-1 (%) | Exact match | MAE ( ) | RMSE ( ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reverse KL | 0.1648 (0.0039) | 0.1340 (0.0031) | 56.70 (0.16) | 28.94 (0.10) | 0.0320 (0.0005) | 1.4131 (0.0053) | 1.7066 (0.0048) |
| Total variation | 0.1492 (0.0017) | 0.1233 (0.0016) | 56.16 (0.08) | 28.08 (0.07) | 0.0309 (0.0007) | 1.4333 (0.0019) | 1.7252 (0.0020) |
| KL | 0.0928 (0.0019) | 0.0796 (0.0017) | 53.98 (0.08) | 26.94 (0.29) | 0.0298 (0.0000) | 1.4955 (0.0021) | 1.7899 (0.0019) |
| Pearson | 0.1048 (0.0012) | 0.0879 (0.0010) | 54.40 (0.05) | 27.70 (0.26) | 0.0304 (0.0010) | 1.4784 (0.0020) | 1.7749 (0.0019) |
| Squared Hellinger | 0.0937 (0.0005) | 0.0792 (0.0006) | 53.96 (0.03) | 27.80 (0.18) | 0.0314 (0.0018) | 1.4862 (0.0011) | 1.7861 (0.0015) |
| Jensen–Shannon | 0.1044 (0.0010) | 0.0881 (0.0011) | 54.41 (0.05) | 27.97 (0.16) | 0.0314 (0.0011) | 1.4782 (0.0012) | 1.7745 (0.0013) |
LLM Alignment
Large language model alignment studies methods for making models follow human intentions, values, and safety constraints across contexts.
See all 607 papers