Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) typically relies on preference pairs generated from diverse model pools and ranked by an external LLM judge. The recently proposed delta-learning hypothesis suggests that comparable supervision can instead be obtained from a single pair of models by treating the larger model's response as preferred. We investigate the limits of this approach across model families and scales. We show, both theoretically and empirically, that fixed model pairs introduce systematic, generator-dependent biases that are predictive of the preference label independent of response quality. Consequently, DPO trained on single-pair data consistently underperforms multi-model preference data, despite the larger generator producing higher-quality responses, and we trace this gap to training dynamics consistent with reward hacking on these biases. We further show that simply increasing the number of generators, even without an external judge, is enough to partially mitigate this effect. Our results highlight generator diversity as a critical factor in preference-data construction.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Delta learning underperforms multiple-models. Relative score changes across benchmarks and models using olmo2-1b-prefmix as base dataset. Performance is compared between data generated using multiple models (blue) versus a single pair (orange) ( Qwen3-4B vs Qwen3-0.6B ), with dotted lines indicating average performance.
Figure 2: Lower performance doesn’t depend on the generators. Relative score changes across benchmarks. Performance is compared between data generated using multiple models versus a single pair , with dotted lines indicating average performance. Thick orange line represents the average per-benchmark across pairs used.
Model / Dataset
IFEval
TQA
MATH-500
GSM8K
Avg
OLMo2-1B-SFT
61.63%
26.93%
14.60%
51.86%
38.75%
olmo2-1b-prefmix
+7.79%
+4.53%
+0.60%
+6.29%
+4.80%
Average Pairs
-0.31%
+0.34%
-1.12%
+0.50%
-0.14%
Table 1: Delta pair doesn’t underperform because of model-dataset alignment. Benchmark deltas using the original olmo2-1b-prefmix dataset and different model pairs to generate the completions.
Figure 3: Training statistics. Mean reward accuracy and margin ± standard error across models and hyperparameters for olmo2-1b-prefmix and one pair .
Chosen/Dataset
Rejected
Pct Longer%
Median Δ
olmo2-1b-prefmix
-
55.25%
64
Qwen3-4B
Qwen3-0.6B
81.66%
510
Qwen3-32B
Qwen3-0.6B
81.49%
524
Gemma2-27B-it
Gemma2-9B-it
86.96%
723
OLMo2-7B-Instruct
OLMo2-1B-Instruct
47.72%
0.0
OLMo2-32B-Instruct
OLMo2-1B-Instruct
43.84%
-8.0
Table 2: Length Bias. Length completion characters difference between pairs used in Section 3.1 .
Figure 4: Style Bias. PCA of model pairs showing trivial separability with Logistic Regression scores and Explained Variance in the top-left.
Figure 5: Using more models improves performance. Relative score changes across benchmarks. Performance is compared between data generated using multiple models with judge , average of single pairs and multiple models with delta heuristic , with dotted lines indicating average performance.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Feature Name
Type
Detection Criterion / Pattern
has_boxed_latex
Binary
Contains \boxed or $\boxed
has_hash_delimiter
Binary
Contains #### (GSM8K answer marker)
has_calc_annotations
Binary
Matches calculator annotations <<...>>
has_display_math_dollars
Binary
Contains display math delimiters $$
has_display_math_brackets
Binary
Contains display math delimiters and
has_bold_answer
Binary
Matches answer: prefix (case-insensitive)
Appendix
Table 3: GSM8K Style Features. Description and detection criteria used to extract the 11-dimensional style representation vector.
Benchmark
CoT
Shots
Metric
Acronym
TruthfulQA
✗
6
MC1
TQA
Arc-Challenge
✗
0
Unconditional Accuracy
ARC-C
IFEval
✗
0
pass@1 (instance;loose)
-
IFBench
✗
0
pass@1 (instance;loose)
-
Math-500
✓
4
Flex EM
-
GSM8K
✓
8
EM
-
Appendix
Table 4: Overview of evaluation benchmarks. All benchmarks are evaluated using a multi-turn chat format with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) ( Wei et al., 2023 ) and few-shot examples injected as conversation turns where specified. The acronyms are used in the figures.
Model / Dataset
IFEval
TQA
ARC-C
MATH-500
GSM8K
MBPP
H-EVAL
Avg
Qwen2-1.5B-Instruct
40.17 %
28.40 %
45.48 %
22.80 %
53.37 %
44.75 %
46.34 %
40.18714285714286 %
olmo2-1b-prefmix
+ 9.23 %
+ 1.22 %
+ 2.68 %
0.00 %
+ 3.64 %
+ 4.28 %
+ 1.22 %
+ 3.181428571428571 %
olmo2-1b-prefmix-delta
−0.36 %
+ 0.49 %
+ 0.67 %
−0.60 %
+ 0.91 %
+ 1.17 %
−1.22 %
+ 0.1514285714285714 %
Gemma2-2B-it
67.87 %
41.62 %
48.49 %
15.00 %
54.51 %
50.19 %
40.24 %
45.41714285714286 %
olmo2-1b-prefmix
+ 12.11 %
+ 1.59 %
+ 1.34 %
+ 1.40 %
+ 0.91 %
+ 2.72 %
+ 6.71 %
+ 3.825714285714286 %
olmo2-1b-prefmix-delta
+ 4.32 %
+ 1.22 %
+ 2.34 %
−1.40 %
+ 2.27 %
−1.56 %
+ 4.27 %
+ 1.637142857142857 %
Appendix
Table 5: Delta pair generation underperforms. Benchmark deltas using the original olmo2-1b-prefmix dataset and Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-0.6B to generate completions.
Model / Dataset
IFEval
TQA
ARC-C
MATH-500
GSM8K
MBPP
H-EVAL
Avg
Qwen2-1.5B-Instruct
40.17 %
28.40 %
45.48 %
22.80 %
53.37 %
44.75 %
46.34 %
40.18714285714286 %
olmo2-1b-prefmix
+ 9.23 %
+ 1.22 %
+ 2.68 %
0.00 %
+ 3.64 %
+ 4.28 %
+ 1.22 %
+ 3.181428571428571 %
Qwen3/ 4 - 0.6 B
−0.36 %
0.49 %
0.67 %
−0.60 %
0.91 %
1.17 %
−1.22 %
0.1514285714285714 %
Qwen3/ 32 - 0.6 B
0.36 %
−0.12 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.76 %
−0.39 %
0.61 %
0.1742857142857143 %
Olmo2-it/ 32 - 1 B
5.76 %
0.12 %
1.00 %
1.60 %
−0.83 %
1.56 %
0.00 %
1.315714285714286 %
Olmo2-it/ 7 - 1 B
4.32 %
−0.24 %
2.34 %
1.00 %
−0.76 %
0.00 %
−1.22 %
0.7771428571428571 %
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation pair generators show consistent low performance. Benchmark deltas using the original olmo2-1b-prefmix dataset and different model pairs to generate the completions.
Model / Dataset
IFEval
TQA
MATH-500
GSM8K
Avg
OLMo2-1B-SFT
61.63%
26.93%
14.60%
51.86%
38.75%
olmo2-1b-prefmix
+7.79%
+4.53%
+0.60%
+6.29%
+4.80%
Qwen3/ 4 - 0.6 B
0.24%
1.10%
-0.80%
1.29%
0.46%
Qwen3/ 32 - 0.6 B
1.08%
1.59%
-1.20%
1.21%
0.67%
Olmo2-it/ 32 - 1 B
-0.48%
-0.24%
-0.60%
-0.45%
-0.44%
Olmo2-it/ 7 - 1 B
-1.32%
-0.37%
-1.40%
-0.45%
-0.88%
Appendix
Table 7: Delta pair doesn’t underperform because of model-dataset alignment. Benchmark deltas using the original olmo2-1b-prefmix dataset and different model pairs to generate the completions training OLMo2-1B-SFT , the model for which the dataset was designed.
Model / Dataset
IFEval
TQA
ARC-C
MATH-500
GSM8K
MBPP
H-EVAL
Avg
Qwen2-1.5B-Instruct
40.17 %
28.40 %
45.48 %
22.80 %
53.37 %
44.75 %
46.34 %
40.18714285714286 %
olmo2-1b-prefmix
+ 9.23 %
+ 1.22 %
+ 2.68 %
0.00 %
+ 3.64 %
+ 4.28 %
+ 1.22 %
+ 3.181428571428571 %
Average Pairs
+ 2.30 %
+ 0.02 %
+ 0.94 %
+ 0.48 %
−0.03 %
+ 0.62 %
−0.49 %
+ 0.5485714285714286 %
Few Pairs
+ 2.04 %
−0.37 %
+ 0.33 %
+ 1.80 %
−1.44 %
+ 1.95 %
+ 1.22 %
+ 0.79 %
More Pairs
+ 6.36 %
−0.24 %
+ 0.33 %
+ 2.00 %
+ 0.76 %
+ 1.56 %
−0.61 %
+ 1.451428571428571 %
Gemma2-2B-it
67.87 %
41.62 %
48.49 %
15.00 %
54.51 %
50.19 %
40.24 %
45.41714285714286 %
Appendix
Table 8: Using Multiple Pairs. Benchmark deltas using the original olmo2-1b-prefmix dataset and multiple pairs to generate the completions. Few Pairs and More Pairs correspond respectively to completions generated by only the models used in previous experiments and the ones listed in Appendix D.2
Model
GSM8K
IFEval
MBPP
Avg
Gemma2-27B-it
80.67%
77.45%
78.60%
78.91%
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
83.70%
71.35%
73.93%
76.33%
Gemma2-9B-it
79.53%
73.01%
65.76%
72.77%
OLMo2-1B-Instruct
67.48%
63.96%
22.57%
51.33%
SmolLM2-1.7B-Instruct
46.25%
46.95%
49.81%
47.67%
Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2
45.03%
48.98%
39.30%
44.44%
Appendix
Table 9: Models generator evaluation. Performance across Math, Instruction-Following, and Code benchmarks to determine pairs group for DPO. For IFEval we report prompt-level strict accuracy, as a stricter metric widens the performance gap across models.
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.
Offline preference optimization has become a practical substitute for reinforcement learning from human feedback, but pairwise objectives such as Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and its variants use only the chosen and rejected responses stored in a static dataset. This leaves a useful signal unused: the response that the reference model itself would generate for the same prompt. We propose Direct Preference Optimization with Penalization (DPOP), a simple extension of DPO that augments the base preference loss with a gated penalty on reference-greedy responses. DPOP activates this penalty only when the current policy still assigns a lower likelihood to the preferred response than to the rejected response. On AlpacaEval 2.0, DPOP improves length-controlled win rate over DPO, SimPO, and AlphaDPO on both Llama-3-8b-it and Gemma-2-9b-it, achieving relative gains of 5.3% and 4.4% over baselines on the two models, respectively. Ablations further show that a SimNPO-style length-normalized penalty is stronger than NPO and token-level unlikelihood in this setting.
Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has become a standard reward-model-free approach for aligning language models with preference data. However, as the scaled preference margin grows during training, the logistic DPO loss becomes progressively less sensitive to further changes. We study DPO from a loss-level geometric perspective and identify the sigmoid factor as a learning signal that characterizes the local sensitivity of the objective. Based on this view, we propose Learning-Signal-Controlled Direct Preference Optimization (LSC-DPO), which dynamically regulates the learning signal near a target regime. A log-space analysis establishes conditions for stable tracking of the target learning-signal regime. Experiments on AlpacaEval 2, MT-Bench, and Anthropic-HH show that LSC-DPO consistently improves over DPO and strong preference-optimization baselines. We further find that different coefficient initializations induce distinct transient learning-signal trajectories even when their later signal levels become similar. Based on this observation, we derive a signal-budget compensation rule that adjusts the target learning signal to compensate for these transient differences. The resulting compensation substantially reduces performance variation across coefficient initializations.