Papers › Towards Understanding Valuable Preference Data for Large Language Model Alignment
Towards Understanding Valuable Preference Data for Large Language Model Alignment
Zizhuo Zhang, Qizhou Wang, Shanshan Ye, Jianing Zhu, Jiangchao Yao, Bo Han, Masashi Sugiyama
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Large language model (LLM) alignment is typically achieved through learning from human preference comparisons, making the quality of preference data critical to its success. Existing studies often pre-process raw training datasets to identify valuable preference pairs using external reward models or off-the-shelf LLMs, achieving improved overall performance but rarely examining whether individual, selected data point is genuinely beneficial. We assess data quality through individual influence on validation data using our newly proposed truncated influence function (TIF), which mitigates the over-scoring present in traditional measures and reveals that preference data quality is inherently a property of the model. In other words, a data pair that benefits one model may harm another. This leaves the need to improve the preference data selection approaches to be adapting to specific models. To this end, we introduce two candidate scoring functions (SFs) that are computationally simpler than TIF and positively correlated with it. They are also model dependent and can serve as potential indicators of individual data quality for preference data selection. Furthermore, we observe that these SFs inherently exhibit errors when compared to TIF. To this end, we combine them to offset their diverse error sources, resulting in a simple yet effective data selection rule that enables the models to achieve a more precise selection of valuable preference data. We conduct experiments across diverse alignment benchmarks and various LLM families, with results demonstrating that better alignment performance can be achieved using less data, showing the generality of our findings and new methods. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/tmlr-group/TIF_LossDiff-IRM.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2510.13212")
Code
Syntology Ran 0 of 21 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 21 have no recorded run.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 21 samples from 1 repository, 0 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
21 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 21 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 21 of the 21 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from tmlr-group/TIF_LossDiff-IRM. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
8e680b35d845de28 · report
ae9d6994bbaf2c28 · report
87d4a4018ae927d4 · report
833ac53ebd095a26 · report
39cbc907eb087c14 · report
422c10cc1340815b · report
46e5b32f4f287fa8 · report
f688c7a26a24d651 · report
7bbf7a5207c682b0 · report
1976064be25085f7 · report
80c41f1da6f9e664 · report
deeaaed5a48fb372 · report
8b89fc7d1a1f608a · report
a65ff6fa4d9d7cc7 · report
07adb23040d2275c · report
17f3dfa5c8d12d87 · report
e2a67da3a04cd3c7 · report
f06ea4ab38142076 · report
57554c79159f92df · report
43485be04415bd36 · report
9b8c4e63551b7168 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2510.13212, was issued in October 2025, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections