SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward
Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) is a widely used offline preference optimization algorithm that reparameterizes reward functions in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to enhance simplicity and training stability. In this work, we propose SimPO, a simpler yet more effective approach. The effectiveness of SimPO is attributed to a key design: using the average log probability of a sequence as the implicit reward. This reward formulation better aligns with model generation and eliminates the need for a reference model, making it more compute and memory efficient. Additionally, we introduce a target reward margin to the Bradley-Terry objective to encourage a larger margin between the winning and losing responses, further improving the algorithm’s performance.
Recently, researchers have been exploring simpler offline algorithms. Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) [66] is one such approach. DPO reparameterizes the reward function in RLHF to directly learn a policy model from preference data, eliminating the need for an explicit reward model. It has gained widespread practical adoption due to its simplicity and stability. In DPO, the implicit reward is formulated using the log ratio of the likelihood of a response between the current policy model and the supervised fine-tuned (SFT) model. However, this reward formulation is not directly aligned with the metric used to guide generation, which is approximately the average log likelihood of a response generated by the policy model. We hypothesize that this discrepancy between training and inference may lead to suboptimal performance.
In this work, we propose SimPO, a simple yet effective offline preference optimization algorithm (Figure 1). The core of our algorithm aligns the reward function in the preference optimization objective with the generation metric. SimPO consists of two major components: (1) a length-normalized reward, calculated as the average log probability of all tokens in a response using the policy model, and (2) a target reward margin to ensure the reward difference between winning and losing responses exceeds this margin.
Discrepancy between reward and generation for DPO. Using Eq. (1) as the implicit reward has the following drawbacks: (1) it requires a reference model πref during training, which incurs additional memory and computational costs; and (2) it creates a mismatch between the reward optimized in training and the log-likelihood optimized during inference, where no reference model is involved. This means that in DPO, for any triple (x, yw, yl), satisfying the reward ranking r(x, yw) > r(x, yl) does not necessarily mean that the likelihood ranking pθ(yw | x) > pθ(yl | x) is met (here pθ is the average log-likelihood in Eq. (3)). In our experiments, we observed that only ∼ 50% of the triples from the training set satisfy this condition when trained with DPO (Figure 4b). This observation aligns with a concurrent work [14], which finds that existing models trained with DPO exhibit random ranking accuracy in terms of average log-likelihood, even after extensive preference optimization.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
Does preference optimization harm conversational grounding in language models? What systematic biases affect LLM-based evaluation systems? How does iterative DPO compare to online RL for studying emergent misalignment?- How much does preference data freshness matter compared to data source in DPO?
- What misaligned behaviors does iterative DPO produce compared to online RL?
- Does environment choice explain differences between iterative DPO and RL results?
- Does iterative DPO generalize like online reinforcement learning?
- What specific properties of online RL does iterative DPO actually preserve?
- How many rounds of iterative DPO are needed to induce misalignment behaviors?
- Does iterative DPO generalize identically to online RL on the same benchmark tasks?
- Does iterative DPO preserve the same misalignment mechanisms as online reinforcement learning?
- Does iterative online DPO fidelity match true reinforcement learning for safety research?
- How does iterative DPO compare to full RLVR for studying emergent misalignment?
- How does RLMF differ from standard preference optimization methods?
- How should misalignment from iterative DPO be quantitatively measured?
- What theoretical argument connects iterative DPO dynamics to online RL learning?
- Can iterative DPO on public APIs reproduce the reward hacking results from production RL?
- How does iterative DPO compare to standard RL for studying reward hacking effects?
- How does modified PPO handle samples from much older model versions?
- Can algorithm choice like PPO substitute for recipe-level design decisions?
- Why does GRPO outperform PPO for stable empathy training?