Offline Preference Optimization via Maximum Marginal Likelihood Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences is crucial, but standard methods like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) are often complex and unstable. In this work, we propose a new, simpler approach that recasts alignment through the lens of Maximum Marginal Likelihood (MML) estimation. Our new MML based Preference Optimization (MMPO) maximizes the marginal log-likelihood of a preferred text output, using the preference pair as samples for approximation, and forgoes the need for both an explicit reward model and entropy maximization. We theoretically demonstrate that MMPO implicitly performs preference optimization, producing a weighted gradient that naturally up-weights chosen responses over rejected ones. Across models ranging from 135M to 8B parameters, we empirically show that MMPO: 1) is more stable with respect to the hyperparameter $β$ compared to alternative baselines, and 2) achieves competitive or superior preference alignment while better preserving the base model's general language capabilities. Through a series of ablation experiments, we show that this improved performance is indeed attributable to MMPO's implicit preference optimization within the gradient updates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".