Aligning generative models with human preference via RLHF typically suffers from overoptimization, where an imperfectly learned reward model can misguide the generative model to output even undesired responses. We investigate this problem in a principled manner by identifying the source of the issue as the distributional shift and uncertainty of human preference in dataset. To mitigate overoptimization, we first propose a theoretical algorithm which optimizes the policy against an adversarially chosen reward model, one that simultaneously minimizes its MLE loss and a reward penalty term. The penalty pessimistically biases the uncertain rewards so as to prevent the policy from choosing actions with spursiouly high proxy rewards, resulting in provable sample efficiency of the algorithm under a partial coverage style condition. Moving from theory to practice, the proposed algorithm further enjoys an equivalent but surprisingly easy to implement form. With a clever usage of the equivalence between reward models and the corresponding optimal policy, the algorithm features a simple objective that combines (i) a preference optimization loss that directly aligns the policy with human preference, and (ii) a supervised learning loss which explicitly imitates the policy with a baseline distribution. In the context of aligning large language models (LLM), this objective fuses the direct preference optimization (DPO) loss with the supervised fune-tuning (SFT) loss to help mitigate the overoptimization towards undesired responses, for which we name the algorithm Regularized Preference Optimization (RPO).Experiments of aligning LLMs demonstrate the improved performance of our method when compared with DPO baselines. Our work sheds light on the interplay between preference optimization and SFT in tuning LLMs with both theoretical guarantees and empirical evidence.