Large language models (LLMs) typically receive diverse natural language (NL) feedback through interaction with the environment. However, current reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms rely solely on scalar rewards, leaving the rich information in NL feedback underutilized and leading to inefficient exploration. In this work, we propose GOLF, an RL framework that explicitly exploits group-level language feedback to guide targeted exploration through actionable refinements. GOLF aggregates two complementary feedback sources: (i) external critiques that pinpoint errors or propose targeted fixes, and (ii) intra-group attempts that supply alternative partial ideas and diverse failure patterns. These group-level feedbacks are aggregated to produce high-quality refinements, which are adaptively injected into training as off-policy scaffolds to provide targeted guidance in sparse-reward regions. Meanwhile, GOLF jointly optimizes generation and refinement within a unified RL loop, creating a virtuous cycle that continuously improves both capabilities. Experiments on both verifiable and non-verifiable benchmarks show that GOLF achieves superior performance and exploration efficiency, achieving 2.2× improvements in sample efficiency compared to RL methods trained solely on scalar rewards. Code is available at https://github.com/LuckyyySTA/GOLF.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An illustration of RL with natural language feedabck. Compared with scalar-reward RL (top), aggregating intra-group and external feedback turns sparse outcomes into actionable refinement signals, enabling guided exploration (bottom).
Figure 2: An overview of Golf , which consists of three components. The policy first rollouts a group of candidates and receives both scalar rewards and external critiques. Golf then aggregates the critiques with the failed trajectories in the same group to form group-level NL feedback, which conditions a refinement stage to produce improved responses. Finally, high-quality refinements are adaptively injected back into the rollout group as off-policy guidance, mitigating low-reward regimes. Both generation and refinement are optimized jointly within a unified RL loop.
Model
AlpacaEval-v2
WildBench
Arena-Hard-v1
ArenaHard-v2
CreativeWriting-v3
Average
Win Rate (%)
LC Win Rate (%)
LLM Judge (%)
Win Rate (%)
Win Rate (%)
LLM Judge (%)
Score (%)
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
31.93
31.79
-8.25
30.80
5.57
53.96
24.30
+ Direct-Likert
38.88
34.98
13.48
51.55
11.73
64.10
35.79
+ Pairwise-GRPO
45.47
43.19
25.54
49.20
13.30
62.95
39.94
+ Rubric-as-Reward
42.24
36.12
26.51
52.10
15.57
68.12
40.11
+ Critique-GRPO
47.45
43.31
25.09
50.15
13.73
65.76
40.92
Table 1: Experimental results on non-verifiable tasks. All metrics are the higher the better. Bold and underline numbers indicate the best performance and second performance among all methods, respectively. WildBench scores are in [−100,100] , while all other metrics are in [0,100] . All scores are judged by GPT-4o.
Figure 3: Evaluation performance over training steps. We report the LC win rate on AlpacaEval v2.0 (left), WildBench score (middle), and ArenaHard v2.0 win rate (right). The baseline refers to Pairwise-GRPO, which uses the same generative reward model as Golf .
Figure 4: Pass@ k comparison between GRPO and Golf on mathematical reasoning benchmarks using Qwen-3-8B.
Model
Mathmatical Reasoning
Instruction Following
AIME 24
AIME 25
AMC 23
IFBench
IFEval
Qwen-3-4B
22.53
18.55
59.41
23.67
81.52
+ Refinement-FT
31.67
21.25
64.06
30.44
83.73
+ Critique-FT
34.58
24.58
65.94
31.67
82.63
+ GRPO
42.72
35.42
76.85
33.33
84.45
+ Critique-GRPO
45.72
35.89
76.14
35.67
85.21
Table 2: Experimental results on verifiable tasks. All metrics are higher is better. Bold and underline numbers indicate the best performance and second performance among all methods.
Figure 5: Ablation on feedback sources. We ablate intra-group attempts or external critiques from the aggregated refinement context. Bars report average performance over the non-verifiable, math reasoning, and instruction following suites and we provide per-benchmark results in Appendix G .
Figure 6: Evaluation on LCBv6 with Qwen-3-8B . Left: Avg@4 accuracy curve over training steps. Right: Final performance comparison with SDPO ( Hübotter et al., 2026 ) under the same environment feedback setting.
Figure 7: Left: Average performance comparison of different off-policy sample learning strategies on non-verifiable benchmarks; full results are provided in Appendix 10 . Right: Zero-reward ratio during training.
Model
Biology
Chemistry
Law
Average
Self-Refinement
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
9.09
8.33
23.94
13.79
+ GRPO
22.73
27.77
22.24
24.25
+ Golf
27.27
33.33
24.64
28.41
Guided-Refinement
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
18.18
27.78
49.30
31.75
Table 3: RefineBench performance under two settings: self-refinement , where the model refines its initial response, and guided-refinement , where the refinement is conditioned on the checklists.
Figure 8: Policy entropy (seq-mean-token-sum-norm) of Golf and the Pairwise-GRPO baseline over training steps.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Feedback Type
pass@4 (%)
Acc (%)
Simple
0.00
0.00
Intra
18.80
6.65
External
27.60
17.00
Mixed
30.40
17.55
Appendix
Table 4: Test-time refinement results under different feedback conditions.
Category
Hyperparameter
Value
Data
Train file
WildChat-IF
Max prompt length
8192
Max response length
4096
Filter overlong prompts
True
Actor Model
Base model 1
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Base model 2
Qwen-3-8B
Appendix
Table 5: Key hyperparameters used for RL training for non-verifiable tasks in the verl ( Sheng et al., 2025 ) framework.
Category
Hyperparameter
Value
Data
Train file
OpenR1-filtered
Max prompt length
8192
Max response length
6144
Filter overlong prompts
True
Actor Model
Base model 1
Qwen-3-4B (non-thinking)
Base model 2
Qwen-3-8B (non-thinking)
Appendix
Table 6: Key hyperparameters used for RL training for the mathematical reasoning task used in the verl ( Sheng et al., 2025 ) framework.
Category
Hyperparameter
Value
Data
Train file
IFTrain-filtered
Max prompt length
8192
Max response length
4096
Filter overlong prompts
True
Actor Model
Base model 1
Qwen-3-4B (non-thinking)
Base model 2
Qwen-3-8B (non-thinking)
Appendix
Table 7: Key hyperparameters used for RL training for the instruction following task used in the verl ( Sheng et al., 2025 ) framework.
Model
AlpacaEval-v2
WildBench
ArenaHard-v2
CreativeWriting-v3
Average
LC Win Rate (%)
LLM Judge (%)
Win Rate (%)
LLM Judge (%)
Score (%)
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Golf
69.67
34.42
25.03
66.21
50.19
w/o intra-feedback
52.70
37.30
20.60
60.94
42.89
w/o external-feedback
51.00
33.91
17.67
55.91
39.62
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation experiment results for the group-level feedback on non-verifiable tasks. Higher is better. Bold and underline numbers indicate the best and second-best performance among all methods, respectively. WildBench scores are in [−100,100] , while all other metrics are in [0,100] . All scores are judged by GPT-4o.
Model
Mathmatical Reasoning
Instruction Following
AIME 24
AIME 25
AMC 23
IFBench
IFEval
Qwen-3-8B
Golf
58.49
41.65
80.74
38.33
87.80
w/o intra-feedback
53.02
40.30
82.06
36.67
86.88
w/o external-feedback
55.64
39.37
79.43
35.67
85.95
Appendix
Table 9: Experimental results on verifiable tasks. All metrics are higher is better. Bold and underline numbers indicate the best performance and second performance among all methods.
Model
AlpacaEval-v2
WildBench
ArenaHard-v1
ArenaHard-v2
CreativeWriting-v3
Average
LC Win Rate (%)
LLM Judge (%)
Win Rate (%)
Win Rate (%)
LLM Judge (%)
Score (%)
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
+ Golf (w/ mixed-policy RL)
69.67
34.42
52.40
25.03
66.21
49.55
+ Golf (w/ sft, coef = 0.1)
39.03
34.62
46.75
15.87
44.41
36.14
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation experiment results for the mixed-policy optimization. Higher is better. Bold numbers indicates the best performance among all methods. WildBench scores are in [−100,100] , while all other metrics are in [0,100] . All scores are judged by GPT-4o.
Model
AlpacaEval-v2
WildBench
ArenaHard-v1
ArenaHard-v2
CreativeWriting-v3
Average
LC Win Rate (%)
LLM Judge (%)
Win Rate (%)
Win Rate (%)
LLM Judge (%)
Score (%)
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
+ Golf (w/ adaptive)
69.67
34.42
52.40
25.03
66.21
49.55
+ Golf (w/o adaptive)
40.73
23.78
45.80
15.80
53.84
35.99
Appendix
Table 11: Ablation experiment results for the adaptive guidance mechanism. Higher is better. Bold numbers indicate the best performance among all methods. WildBench scores are in [−100,100] , while all other metrics are in [0,100] . All scores are judged by GPT-4o.
Model
AlpacaEval-v2
WildBench
ArenaHard-v1
ArenaHard-v2
CreativeWriting-v3
Average
LC Win Rate (%)
LLM Judge (%)
Win Rate (%)
Win Rate (%)
LLM Judge (%)
Score (%)
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
+ Golf (rollout=8)
69.67
34.42
52.40
25.03
66.21
49.55
+ Pairwise-GRPO (rollout=8)
43.19
25.54
49.20
13.30
62.95
38.84
+ Pairwise-GRPO (rollout=16)
46.66
28.62
51.80
14.10
64.21
41.08
Appendix
Table 12: Ablation experiment results for efficiency. Higher is better. Bold numbers indicate the best performance among all methods. WildBench scores are in [−100,100] , while all other metrics are in [0,100] . All scores are judged by GPT-4o.
Reinforcement Learning (RL) with rubric-based rewards has recently shown remarkable progress in enhancing general reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet still suffers from ineffective exploration confined to curent policy distribution. In fact, RL optimization can be viewed as steering the policy toward an ideal distribution that maximizes the rewards, while effective exploration should align efforts with desired target. Leveraging this insight, we propose HeRL, a Hindsight experience guided Reinforcement Learning framework to bootstrap effective exploration by explicitly telling LLMs the desired behaviors specified in rewards. Concretely, HeRL treats failed trajectories along with their unmet rubrics as hindsight experience, which serves as in-context guidance for the policy to explore desired responses beyond its current distribution. Additionally, we introduce a bonus reward to incentivize responses with greater potential for improvement under such guidance. HeRL facilitates effective learning from desired high quality samples without repeated trial-and-error from scratch, yielding a more accurate estimation of the expected gradient theoretically. Extensive experiments across various benchmarks demonstrate that HeRL achieves superior performance gains over baselines, and can further benefit from experience guided self-improvement at test time. Our code is available at https://github.com/sikelifei/HeRL.
Wenjian Zhang, Kongcheng Zhang, Jiaxin Qi +2
Dalian University of Technology · Zhejiang University · Chinese Academy of Sciences
We develop an online learning algorithm that dramatically improves the data efficiency of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Our algorithm incrementally updates reward and language models as choice data is received. The reward model is fit to the choice data, while the language model is updated by a variation of reinforce, with reinforcement signals provided by the reward model. Several features enable the efficiency gains: a small affirmative nudge added to each reinforcement signal, an epistemic neural network that models reward uncertainty, and information-directed exploration. With Gemma large language models (LLMs), our algorithm matches the performance of offline RLHF trained on 200K labels using fewer than 20K labels, representing more than a 10x gain in data efficiency. Extrapolating from our results, we expect our algorithm trained on 1M labels to match offline RLHF trained on 1B labels. This represents a 1,000x gain. To our knowledge, these are the first results to demonstrate that such large improvements are possible.
Seyed Mohammad Asghari, Chris Chute, Vikranth Dwaracherla +5
Efficient exploration often remains a central bottleneck in reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). Although temperature control and test-time scaling strategies can increase rollout diversity of large language models (LLMs), they either expand the sample budget at rollout time or leave the benefit of exploration unquantified. To this end, we propose Temperature-Grouped Reinforcement Learning (TGRL), which turns temperature-induced diversity into an explicit training signal. For each prompt, TGRL partitions its rollout group into low- and high-temperature subsets, estimates exploration gain through their reward contrast, and allocates this group-level signal as token-level credit using Jensen--Shannon (JS) divergence between the corresponding temperature-scaled next-token distributions induced by the same logits. Notably, TGRL reaches equivalent accuracy up to 36% faster than strong RLVR baselines without expanding the rollout budget. Across 11 benchmarks from diverse domains, TGRL broadly improves over strong RLVR baselines: it improves the six-benchmark math average by 1.6% at 32B, raises CodeForces rating by 196.7 points and LiveCodeBench Pass@16 by 4.4%, and improves ALFWorld/WebShop success rates by 6.3%/4.9%. Comprehensive ablations and wall-clock analysis confirm the efficacy of all proposed components. Code is available at https://github.com/1229095296/TGRL/tree/main.
Zihan Lin, Xiaohan Wang, Jie Cao +4
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Meituan · MAIS&NLPR, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences