Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 27, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
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.