Skip to content

Beyond Pairs: Your Language Model is Secretly Optimizing a Preference Graph

Ning Liu Chuanneng Sun Kristina Klinkner Shervin Malmasi
Oct 2026
Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning

Abstract

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) aligns language models using pairwise preference comparisons, offering a simple and effective alternative to Reinforcement Learning (RL) from human feedback. However, in many practical settings, training data consists of multiple rollouts per prompt, inducing rich preference structure that pairwise DPO fails to exploit. Collapsing such data into independent pairs discards transitivity, introduces redundant or conflicting supervision, and can lead to unstable optimization. We propose Graph Direct Preference Optimization (GraphDPO), a structured generalization of DPO that operates over directed acyclic preference graphs induced by rollout rankings. GraphDPO encodes dominance relations as edges and optimizes a graph-structured Plackett--Luce-inspired objective that aggregates supervision over dominated neighborhoods, propagating the transitive structure of the input preferences while recovering standard DPO as a special case. GraphDPO naturally handles tied and incomparable responses through an equivalence-class construction: responses with identical preference signals form graph layers, incomparable responses share a layer without an edge, and absent edges contribute zero loss, preventing the spurious gradients that strict total-order objectives incur. Under this layered construction, GraphDPO maintains linear per-prompt complexity via efficient log-sum-exp aggregation. We further incorporate optional ground-truth anchoring by inserting verified solutions as dominant nodes and applying an annealed schedule that stabilizes early training while gradually relaxing oracle supervision. Experiments on reasoning and program synthesis tasks demonstrate superior performance, suggesting that graph-structured preference modeling is a scalable and robust alternative to pairwise and listwise alignment objectives.

View source

Similar papers

#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54

Diffusion models as plug-and-play priors

The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.

Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al. · 316 citations · ⚡15

Trajectory Balance: Improved Credit Assignment in GFlowNets

It is proved that any global minimizer of the trajectory balance objective can define a policy that samples exactly from the target distribution, and empirically demonstrate the benefits of the trajectories balance objective for GFlowNet convergence, diversity of generated samples, and robustness to long action sequenc...

Esmeralda S. Whitammer, Moksh Jain, Emmanuel Bengio et al. · 302 citations · ⚡60
#artificial intelligence Open access May 2023

Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark

GAOKAO-Bench is introduced, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples, including both subjective and objective questions that contribute a robust evaluation benchmark for future large language models and offers valuable insights into the advantages and limitations...

Xiaotian Zhang, Chun-yan Li, Yi Zong et al. · 216 citations · ⚡17

KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization

This work proposes a HALO that directly maximizes the utility of generations instead of maximizing the log-likelihood of preferences, and suggests that the best loss depends on the inductive biases most appropriate for a given setting, an oft-overlooked consideration.

Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Niklas Muennighoff et al. · 195 citations · ⚡28

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Sep 29, 2026

Who we become when we talk to machines

Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.