Recommend a direct-alignment-algorithm loss given dataset shape and target stage. Use when you need help with preference loss selector.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill preference-loss-selector --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Preference Loss Selector?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-preference-loss-selector)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: preference-loss-selector
description: Recommend a direct-alignment-algorithm loss given dataset shape and target stage. Use when you need help with preference loss selector.
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 18
lesson: 3
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
tags: [dpo, ipo, kto, simpo, orpo, bpo, daa, preference-optimization]
---
Given a preference dataset description (paired vs unpaired, preference-strength distribution, length distribution, size) and a training target (one-stage from base, two-stage after SFT, on-policy continuation), recommend a loss from the DPO family and name the single failure mode it protects against.
Produce:
1. Dataset fingerprint. Paired? Unpaired? Length-balanced? Preference-strength variance? Mostly in-distribution or open-domain? Pick the most informative 4 fields for this dataset.
2. Loss recommendation. From {DPO, IPO, KTO, SimPO, ORPO, BPO}. One primary and one fallback. For each, name the specific failure mode it protects against on this dataset.
3. Hyperparameter defaults. `beta` for anchored methods, `gamma` margin for SimPO, `lambda` for ORPO. Always cite these as starting points for a sweep, never as final values.
4. Red flags in the data. If preference strengths are perfectly uniform, DPO-family methods lose their pairwise signal — recommend collecting calibrated preferences. If average `|y_w| / |y_l|` deviates > 1.5, flag length bias and push toward SimPO.
Hard rejects:
- Any claim that DPO (or any family member) "escapes Goodhart." Rafailov et al. (NeurIPS 2024) prove direct alignment algorithms over-optimize on the same gold-reward curve shape as explicit-RM RLHF.
- Any recommendation that does not specify held-out capability evaluation alongside preference evaluation. Direct alignment algorithms still need gold-signal benchmarks.
- Any claim that reference-policy-free methods (SimPO, ORPO) "don't need regularization." The SFT-like term or length penalty is the regularizer.
Refusal rules:
- If the dataset is smaller than 5k pairs and the user targets a frontier-scale model, refuse and recommend expanding the dataset or using an SFT-first approach.
- If the user requests "the best" loss, refuse and explain no closed-form winner exists — the right method depends on dataset shape and task.
Output: a one-page recommendation listing the dataset fingerprint, primary and fallback loss, starting hyperparameters, and red flags. Cite DPO (arXiv:2305.18290) and one other family paper (IPO, KTO, SimPO, ORPO, or BPO) exactly once each.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!