Reinforcement Learning From Human Feedback

A central challenge across control and learning is the design of mechanisms regulating the interactions between humans and autonomous agents. Inspired by the free energy principle from computational neuroscience, we introduce a control-theoretical framework to integrate human preferences online into an agent policy. We turn the framework into an open control architecture and validate our approach using a human-in-the-loop experimental testbed involving a rover navigating via onboard sensing. The human, remotely located and equipped with virtual reality headsets, shares the same sensory information as the rover. Human preferences are provided to the rover via gestures which introduce both cooperative and competitive interactions between the agent goal and the preferences. The experiments show that interactions are regulated, validating the proposed approach.

While Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is the standard paradigm for aligning large language models with human preferences, its effectiveness in pluralistic settings has been called into question. Notably, recent work by G"olz et al. (2025) demonstrated that the \textit{distortion} -- defined as the multiplicative gap between the average user utility of the RLHF policy and the optimal average utility -- can scale exponentially with the Bradley-Terry temperature parameter $\beta$ when users have heterogeneous preferences. In this work, we present a fine-grained analysis of the distortion of RLHF with reward clipping and demonstrate that such exponential degradation is not a fundamental property of the algorithm but rather a consequence of distribution mismatch between the distribution generating preference data ($\mu$) and the KL reference policy ($\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}$). To this end, we establish tight upper and lower bounds on the distortion of RLHF across multiple regimes of the KL regularization strength. We show that in a representative regime, under the Bradley-Terry model, the distortion is $\tilde{\Theta}(\beta B + \beta)$, where $B$ is an upper bound on the log density ratio between $\mu$ and $\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}$. In particular, when there is no distribution mismatch (i.e., $\mu = \pi_{\mathrm{ref}}$), RLHF achieves the optimal distortion of $O(\beta)$ up to a constant. Our results suggest that, to reasonably maximize average utility with RLHF, it is preferable to use on-policy sampled preference data or to fine-tune before RLHF on data from a source close to $\mu$.

Social interaction is central to children's language learning, but the effects of different forms of caregiver feedback are difficult to isolate in naturalistic data. We use child-like language models as controlled learners to test which forms of feedback support grammatical development. Small GPT-2-style models are pretrained on child-directed language from CHILDES, then fine-tuned with reinforcement learning using reward models trained to capture four feedback types: communicative feedback, structural alignment, semantic contingency, and affective feedback. Reward fine-tuning yields limited gains on minimal-pair evaluations, but clearer effects in free generation. Structural alignment produces the strongest improvements in grammaticality, providing a novel, plausible mechanistic account of how this feedback can support grammar learning. Communicative feedback yields more moderate gains. In contrast, semantic contingency and affective feedback do not improve grammaticality, although further analyses suggest that they may support other aspects of language learning beyond grammar. These results suggest that different forms of caregiver feedback make complementary contributions to language learning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where rare but severe harmful generations can have significant consequences. Existing Risk-Averse RLHF addresses this issue by optimizing Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR), but it trains policies for fixed risk levels and therefore cannot adjust the desired degree of risk aversion at inference time. In this paper, we propose risk-conditioned RLHF, a framework that trains a single policy that provides a continuous risk-control interface, enabling users to select different degrees of risk aversion without retraining or deploying multiple risk-specific models. Experiments across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that a single risk-conditioned policy can adapt to different risk levels at inference time, enabling more flexible and risk-aware LLM deployment.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as a powerful yet sample-inefficient approach for learning reward models from human preferences, making active learning a critical component in synthesizing informative preference queries. However, effective uncertainty quantification required for active learning remains a key challenge for large neural network reward models. In this paper, we introduce PreferenceEKF, a sample-efficient approach that tracks reward model uncertainty by framing active preference learning as a sequential Bayesian filtering problem. Instead of relying on computationally prohibitive posterior inference over the full neural network parameter space, our method performs sequential inference via an extended Kalman filter within a low-dimensional parameter subspace, continuously updating the reward model posterior as new preference queries arrive. Our approach enables scalable sampling of neural network parameters to efficiently compute acquisition functions for active reward learning. Experiments on the D4RL and V-D4RL benchmarks demonstrate that our approach achieves better sample efficiency, runtime, scalability, and calibration compared to other Bayesian deep learning approaches, and the learned reward models lead to competitive offline reinforcement learning policy performance. This highlights the potential of scalable Bayesian methods for preference-based reward modeling in RLHF. Our code is available at https://github.com/yutaizhou/bnn_pref.

Natural language is emerging as a primary feedback channel for improving language agents, capable of conveying intent, preferences, and causal structure in forms interpretable by both humans and modern language models. We call this paradigm Verbal Reinforcement Learning (VRL) and offer the first unified account of it. We organize the field around a single axis, \textit{when} verbal feedback takes effect in an agent's lifecycle and \textit{what} it modifies, yielding three pillars: (1) \textbf{Language as Grounding Signal}, where language defines the task itself by specifying goals, states, and reward structures; (2) \textbf{Language as Deliberative Feedback}, where natural language guides reasoning at test time without the need to update model parameters; (3) \textbf{Language as Learning Signal}, where language-based feedback shapes model parameters through training. Within each pillar, we synthesize representative work, distinguish key subcategories of approaches, and outline the distinct role language plays in shaping agent behavior. Together, this taxonomy shows how verbal reinforcement is reshaping agent development, while also defining the challenges and opportunities for building more capable and aligned agents.

Large language models have demonstrated conversational capabilities, yet empathetic competence remains challenging. Empathetic support is inherently multi-turn and path-dependent: users disclose concerns gradually, emotions evolve over time, and early responses shape trust and receptivity. Reinforcement learning with verifiable emotion rewards provides scalable supervision for long-horizon interactions. However, existing methods evolve the dialogue policy while keeping its training interaction distribution fixed, creating a mismatch between policy competence and training experience. We introduce a dual-loop self-evolution framework driven by verifiable emotion feedback. With the user simulator and verifier frozen, the inner loop optimizes the multi-turn policy using continuous emotion rewards, while the outer loop uses the same outcomes to estimate policy-relative interaction utility and adapt experience. To obtain estimates from sparse, stochastic rollouts, the framework holds the scenario and interaction state constant within each group and prioritizes conditions whose group pass rates lie near the policy's competence boundary. A hierarchical controller shares evidence across support intents, while uncertainty-guided exploration and uniform rehearsal prevent premature exclusion. The resulting distribution generates trajectories, closing both loops without increasing the rollout budget. On SAGE, our framework raises Qwen3-8B Overall from 53.87 to 79.24 and outperforms protocol-matched uniform emotion-reward reinforcement learning by 7.23 points.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) aggregates heterogeneous preferences into a single reward model, assuming preference homogeneity. When preferences are heterogeneous, this aggregation induces a procedural fairness failure where majority preference groups dominate reward learning while minority preferences are systematically under-represented. This work defines procedural fairness in alignment as preserving distinct preference signals during reward modeling and shows that standard RLHF violates this via preference averaging. Preference-Aware RLHF (PA-RLHF) is introduced, separating optimization across preference modes at the reward learning stage. In a controlled setting, PA-RLHF improves overall alignment accuracy from 46.9% to 67.9% and reduces the fairness gap between best and worst aligned groups from 15.9 to 9.6 percentage points. These results show that procedural fairness failures in alignment can arise from structural design choices in reward learning, even in controlled, noise-free settings, with direct implications for large language models and agentic systems, where biased reward models can compound inequities across sequential decisions.

Human-in-the-loop reinforcement learning (HIL-RL) enables robots to learn contact-rich manipulation from limited real-world interaction, but deployment exposes three coupled limitations: static visual reward models fail under scene changes; independently sampled actions cause temporally inconsistent motion; and vision-based policies remain sensitive to appearance shifts. We present EvoHIL, a unified framework that adapts the reward model, action generator, and visual do main within a staged human-in-the-loop learning process. First, self-evolving reward (SER) adapts the success classifier from human-confirmed positives and provisional weak negatives. Second, Action Flow Stabilization (AFS) generates temporally coherent action chunks through flow matching, grounding policy updates in executed action prefixes and demonstrated behavior. Third, retention-aware offline fine-tuning replays relit interaction data while anchoring the AFS actor-critic to prior behavior, adapting the visual domain without additional robot interaction. Across six manipulation tasks on Franka FR3 and SO-101 arms under a controlled lighting shift, EvoHIL improves task success, agreement with human-confirmation labels, motion smoothness, and completion time relative to human-in-the-loop and imitation baselines.Project page: https://anonymous4366.github.io/EvoHIL/

Large language model (LLM) agents can retrieve memory, call tools, ask clarifying questions, and vary response style, yet adapting these execution decisions to an individual user remains difficult. Fine-tuning a separate LLM is costly or impossible for proprietary systems, while prompts and memory primarily expose user information to the agent rather than adapt its execution decisions from feedback. We formulate personalization of a frozen agent as online learning of a per-user execution policy from scalar feedback observed only for the executed action. We propose FABLE (Factorized Adaptive Bandit Layer for Execution), a lightweight policy layer outside a potentially black-box host agent. FABLE factorizes memory, information-acquisition, and response decisions so feedback updates related choices; filters actions through an externally specified feasible set before exploration; and learns user-specific residual preferences relative to a fixed default-and-cost score via Bayesian contextual Thompson sampling. Under a linear residual-reward model, a calibrated variant inherits an expected-regret bound against the best feasible action. We also characterize preferences unidentifiable under persistent feasibility constraints and provide anytime-valid false-promotion control. Across personalized-reasoning, controlled-feedback, and executable tool-use evaluations, FABLE improves several preference-sensitive behaviors relative to rule-only control while remaining competitive on end-to-end task performance.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is the standard approach for aligning large language models with human preferences, but its quality is limited by static, task-agnostic reward models. This mismatch leads to sparse learning signals and suboptimal alignment. We introduce MeRLa (Meta-Learned Reward Shaping), a principled framework that meta-learns a task-aware shaping function $Φ(x,y;φ)$ across auxiliary tasks before RLHF training. The learned shaping produces a composite reward that preserves policy optimality while providing task-specific learning signals. Our meta-objective combines task discrimination, entropy regularization, and potential-based conservation for stable convergence. We provide theoretical guarantees for policy invariance, analyze representation drift sensitivity, and formally address incentive misalignment from entropy maximization. Experiments on LLaMA-3-8B across four benchmarks show consistent improvements over PPO, DPO, GRPO, and DAPO, achieving a 90.8% length-controlled win rate on AlpacaEval 2.0 and a score of 9.14 on MT-Bench, with 41% less training instability. MeRLa retains its benefits when combined with process-based and rubric-based enhanced rewards.

In RLHF pipelines, reward scoring blocks policy updates. Slow scoring bottlenecks the entire loop, since no update runs until every rollout gets a score. And yet most setups just default to PyTorch eager mode or torch.compile, no one checks if that's actually fastest. Scoring itself is small. Rollout generation eats far more of a typical RLHF step. But scoring and generation fight over the same CPU and GPU resources, so a faster scoring engine doesn't shrink step time on its own. It mainly frees up capacity generation can use instead. We built a native C++ inference engine on ONNX Runtime. First step: confirm correctness. Output matched the PyTorch reference to 5.7 x 10^-6 on CPU and 4.2 x 10^-3 on GPU, close enough to trust. Then we tested it against PyTorch eager mode, torch.compile, and FastAPI, on both CPU and GPU. CPU was decisive. Our engine beat every baseline, confidence intervals didn't even overlap. GPU gave a different view: we beat PyTorch and FastAPI, but torch.compile came out ahead. Further testing traced the speedup to ONNX Runtime itself, not C++ as a language. And batching strategy mattered more than either the language or the runtime choice, more than we expected. The results are from repeated, independent runs, since single runs just aren't reliable enough to trust.

World models are widely used in offline reinforcement learning (RL) to improve sample efficiency and generate experience beyond a fixed dataset. However, they are vulnerable to model exploitation where data coverage is thin. Prior work addresses this either by collecting more expert demonstrations, which is often expensive, unsafe, or unavailable, or by conservative algorithms that avoid uncertain regions, which limits generalization. We propose instead to repair exploitation directly using human preferences over imagined rollouts, leveraging the strong intuitive physics that allows humans to easily spot egregious dynamics hallucinations. We formalize this as Dynamics Learning from Human Feedback (DLHF), a Bradley-Terry preference loss over trajectory log-likelihoods under a learned dynamics model. Unfortunately, naive DLHF is sample inefficient, so we introduce RENEW, which uses epistemic uncertainty to focus finetuning where the model is most exploitable. We evaluate on several Jumanji and classic control environments and find that while naive DLHF requires an outsize preference budget, RENEW makes the framework practical by improving sample efficiency, limiting catastrophic forgetting, and reducing exploitation in pretrained world models. Taken together, our results provide initial evidence that preferences can supervise world model dynamics directly, offering a new approach to addressing exploitation in offline model-based RL.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for aligning generative models with human preferences. However, applying RLHF to diffusion models remains highly feedback inefficient, as existing approaches typically require large amounts of human or reward model evaluations. This limitation reduces the practicality of diffusion RLHF in realworld settings where feedback is the primary bottleneck. In this paper, we propose two complementary strategies that substantially improve the feedback efficiency of diffusion RLHF while preserving generalization to unseen prompts. Our key observation is that reward information in diffusion trajectories is unevenly distributed: not all denoising timesteps or trajectories contribute equally to learning from a reward signal. By emphasizing informative timesteps and trajectories during optimization, we obtain more effective gradient updates. First, we introduce a per-timestep weighting scheme that reweights denoising steps during policy optimization. We theoretically connect this weighting to the optimal convergence properties of proximal policy optimization (PPO) and approximate the resulting weighting trend empirically. Second, we introduce a replay mechanism that prioritizes informative trajectories, enabling the model to reuse past samples instead of repeatedly querying new rewards. Together, these strategies significantly improve the feedback efficiency of diffusion RLHF. Under identical hyperparameter settings, our approach achieves up to a 6$\times$ improvement in sample efficiency compared to widely used diffusion RLHF baselines.

Generalizing machine learning models to environments that differ from their training distribution remains a critical hurdle, particularly when data from the target domain is entirely or partially unavailable. We propose Generative Meta-Learning with Human Feedback (GMHF), a novel framework that bridges this domain gap by leveraging expert intuition to guide data synthesis. Grounded in a theoretical analysis of generalization error, we derive bounds demonstrating that aligning the distribution of generated data with human beliefs regarding the target physics significantly mitigates risk. GMHF operationalizes this insight by employing a Conditional Neural ODE (cNODE) as a generative digital twin, coupled with a Reinforcement Learning (RL) agent. The agent iteratively refines the latent physical parameters of the generated trajectories based on feedback, effectively steering the meta-learner toward the unobserved target distribution. Empirical validation on a nonlinear Duffing oscillator shows that GMHF substantially reduces deployment loss as expert reliability increases, and that the divergence between generated and target data falls under reliable feedback, directly corroborating the divergence-minimisation mechanism predicted by our theory. Further experiments on a non-dynamical probabilistic model confirm that the framework extends beyond ODE-governed systems, establishing human-AI collaboration as a rigorous catalyst for robust generalisation under distribution shift.

Metacognition is a critical component of intelligence that describes the ability to monitor and regulate one's own cognitive processes. Yet LLMs exhibit systemic deficiencies in key metacognitive faculties: they hallucinate with high confidence, fail to recognize knowledge boundaries, and misrepresent their internal uncertainty--undermining trustworthiness and reliability. Since monitoring task performance and adapting behavior accordingly are central to metacognition, we posit that models capable of accurately judging their own performance are better positioned to improve it. We operationalize this idea via two novel mechanisms: reinforcement learning with metacognitive feedback (RLMF), a paradigm to refine completion rankings during preference optimization based on the quality of a model's self-judgments of performance, and metacognitive data selection, which uses similar self-judgments to identify high-value training examples, outperforming naive active learning. We apply these innovations to the problem of faithful calibration (FC), a task that is itself fundamentally metacognitive: the goal is to align expressed with intrinsic uncertainty, difficult even for frontier LLMs. We adopt a two-stage, decoupled approach, first using these methods to calibrate the faithfulness of models' self-reported confidence scores, then mapping to natural, context-adaptable linguistic uncertainty via targeted output editing. Extensive experiments show RLMF achieves generalizable, state-of-the-art FC on diverse tasks while preserving accuracy. Further, RLMF surpasses standard RL by up to 63% while enhancing models' ability to assess and express their own capability limits. This positions RLMF as a promising paradigm to enhance LLM metacognition toward improved abilities and alignment, and suggests metacognitive performance as an effective RL signal to overcome limits of prior intrinsic feedback methods.

We study when natural-language feedback produces improvement beyond the gains obtainable from repeated attempts alone. In multi-turn language agent setting, higher final accuracy can reflect useful feedback, but it can also arise from resampling, format correction, or additional test-time computation. To separate these effects, we introduce a controlled student-teacher protocol across Omni-MATH, Codeforces, BBEH Linguini, and ARC-AGI1, evaluating thirteen open-weight models in both student and teacher roles. We compare external feedback, self-feedback, and unguided self-refinement, while varying interaction history, task difficulty, and teacher access to privileged task information. Across settings, we find that multi-turn improvement is often not evidence of feedback use: self-generated feedback adds little beyond unguided self-refinement, whereas the strongest external teachers produce substantially larger feedback-specific gains, suggesting that useful feedback must provide guidance beyond generic retry. Dense student-teacher interaction matrices further show that interactive gains are driven more by the student's ability to use feedback than by the teacher's identity, although teacher choice remains important for a fixed student. These results suggest that feedback-based agents should be evaluated against repeated-attempt baselines, and that ability to act on feedback, not merely feedback availability, is a central bottleneck for interactive improvement. We release our controlled student-teacher evaluation framework at https://j-lojek.github.io/feedback-generation-is-a-bottleneck/.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) for Large Language Models increasingly relies on critic-free methods as a practical alternative to actor--critic training. Despite their simplicity, existing critic-free approaches propagate a trajectory-level learning signal uniformly across all tokens in a trajectory. This requires full-trajectory policy updates for every rollout, leading to substantial optimization cost for long reasoning traces, even though intermediate prefixes often contain enough information to largely determine the final outcome. We propose Prefix-Sampling Proximal Policy Optimization (PS-PPO), a compute-efficient critic-free method for RLHF that exploits this temporal redundancy. PS-PPO introduces a prompt-conditioned cutoff distribution and samples a cutoff timestep for each trajectory. During the update pass, PS-PPO backpropagates only through the sampled prefix of each trajectory and applies an importance-weighting correction so that the resulting truncated gradient estimator remains unbiased with respect to the full-trajectory objective. Experiments on mathematical reasoning and RLHF benchmarks show that PS-PPO achieves large reductions in training compute and peak GPU memory, while maintaining accuracy comparable to strong critic-free baselines.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) in production does not always have a synchronous reward signal. Code-execution verifiers, slow judge ensembles, and queued human review can return several gradient steps after the rollout that produced them, breaking the synchronous-reward assumption underlying standard PPO. We address this gap with Retroactive Advantage Correction (RAC): each pending slow completion is queued, aged through a non-negative kernel, and reinjected as a clipped residual into the next optimiser step's advantage. We prove that under an unbiased clipped importance ratio, the cumulative RAC correction is exactly unbiased when the effective delay kernel reinjects all of its mass, and carries a bias linear in the unreinjected fraction otherwise; at the no-delay identity kernel it reduces to V-trace. On a tabular Markov decision process (MDP) proof-of-concept, RAC reduces the closed-form policy bias by up to 47.9x at the two-slow-channel configuration, beating wait-for-slow at lower wall-clock cost. RAC integrates with PPO and GRPO through a two-line reward-manager patch.

Reward models for Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) pool preferences across thousands of annotators and fit one global affine calibrator, collapsing raters with systematically different rating-scale offsets and slopes into a single average-rater fit that does not match any individual annotator. PEBS is a per-rater empirical-Bayes shrinkage estimator: it fits per-rater affine calibrators on a held-out slice of each annotator's ratings and applies Morris-James-Stein empirical-Bayes shrinkage toward the population mean, in closed form and without retraining the reward model. On PRISM, PEBS reduces within-user held-out RMSE by 8.58% over the pooled population-slope baseline. The procedure replicates on PluriHarms harm ratings (Qwen-2.5 base, in-family) with a +9.66% RMSE reduction over the same population-slope baseline. PEBS is a closed-form post-hoc estimator for annotator-specific affine calibration in RLHF reward modeling; it leaves the reward base model unchanged and estimates only the rater-level map used at inference time for new ratings.

Job-search platforms rely on low-bandwidth query interfaces that often fail to capture the high-dimensional complexity of candidate profiles. We present an end-to-end RLAIF (Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback) framework to generate \emph{portable} job search queries, terms that abstract away seeker-specific identifiers while preserving generalizable qualifications. This task introduces a highly adversarial reward surface where policy optimization frequently exploits flaws in LLM-as-judge rubrics, resulting in degenerate verbatim-copying behaviors. We conducted comprehensive empirical experiments to isolate the impact of optimization mechanics against structured reward engineering. Our results demonstrate that for critic-free optimizers, performance is overwhelmingly dictated by robust reward shaping, rendering the specific choice of algorithm largely immaterial. While critic-free per-rollout baseline methods (RLOO and REINFORCE++) natively resist reward-hacking, the group-relative advantage normalization in GRPO appears uniquely sensitive to spurious reward signals, making it disproportionately susceptible to exploitation. We show that introducing a deterministic, rule-based reward floor to correct for rewards assigned to verbatim copying mitigates this failure mode, resulting in a substantial $+0.147$ quality improvement on a cross-family evaluation judge. Ultimately, we show that the training-time reward model inflates performance gains by $2.4\times$, confirming that the training success is fundamentally dependent on enforcing reward-shaping disciplines rather than selecting alternative optimizers.

Training safe Reinforcement Learning (RL) systems is inherently challenging, with no guarantee of avoiding unwanted behaviors. The most effective defenses against this are (i) transparency through explainability and (ii) alignment via human feedback. While both show promising results, no publicly available framework currently combines them. To address this, we introduce Themis, an XAI-enabled testing and evaluation framework for Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. Themis supports over 200 widely used environments and is easily configurable for experiments in RL, transparency, and alignment. Our results show that Themis can train reward models that match or outperform the environment's true reward signal using human preferences. We also provide a cloud-based platform for collecting human feedback and managing experiments. It is user-friendly, auto-scalable, and supports large participant groups across multiple experiments without extra development overhead. Tests show Themis can support one thousand users in back-to-back experiments on a modest commercial machine.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) aligns large language models by training reward models on preference data and optimizing policies to maximize predicted rewards. However, this pipeline faces two fundamental challenges: (1) reward models cannot signal when their predictions are unreliable, since they usually act as deterministic point estimators; and (2) modern group-based policy optimization can amplify unreliable reward signals, as exemplified by GRPO's uniform treatment of rewards during advantage computation. As policies explore increasingly diverse responses, these two limitations create a critical vulnerability: unreliable reward estimates may be granted disproportionate influence, triggering severe reward hacking. We propose Uncertainty-Aware Reward Modeling (UARM), which equips reward models with calibrated uncertainty via quantile-based conformal prediction and reweights GRPO advantages through heteroscedastic variance decomposition. Experiments across HelpSteer, UltraFeedback, and PKU-SafeRLHF demonstrate that UARM significantly improves reward model calibration, reduces reward hacking, and enhances downstream alignment quality compared to standard GRPO and uncertainty-agnostic baselines.

Conveying complex objectives to reinforcement learning (RL) agents often requires meticulous reward engineering. Preference-based RL (PbRL) offers a promising alternative by learning reward functions from human feedback, but its scalability is hindered by high labeling costs. Inspired by advances in Video Foundation Models (ViFMs), we present Video-based Optimal Transport Preference (VOTP), a semi-supervised framework that learns effective reward functions from only a handful of labels. By leveraging optimal transport to align visual trajectories within the rich representation space of ViFMs, VOTP effectively generates high-fidelity pseudo-labels for large amounts of unlabeled data, substantially reducing human supervision. Extensive experiments across locomotion and manipulation benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of VOTP, which outperforms state-of-the-art offline PbRL methods under limited feedback budgets. We also showcase the robustness of VOTP in the presence of visual distractors and validate its utility on real robotic tasks, where it learns meaningful rewards with minimal human input.

Standard RLHF pipelines often reduce heterogeneous human judgments into a single scalar reward target. We argue that this reduction can mis-measure alignment in structurally plural societies, where disagreement may reflect culturally, historically, linguistically, regionally, or normatively grounded interpretations rather than annotation noise. We call this failure Preference-Validity Compression, the collapse of multiple plural-valid response options into a single optimization target. Using Malaysia as a diagnostic setting, we analyze RLHF-style feedback aggregation through preference events linking prompts, responses, and acceptability judgments across interpretive frames. Across 321 preference events from 20 participants and 107 trio-annotated prompts, 79% of prompts contain more than one majority-supported response that single-winner aggregation would discard, and apparent dominance gaps between top responses diminish when all majority-supported options are considered. Participants frequently select multiple acceptable responses, and discarded responses demonstrably reflect coherent local, practical, or cultural frames. These findings show that majority aggregation in this corpus measures argmax acceptability rather than plural alignment. We treat this as a measurement-validity issue and argue that future alignment methods should satisfy Validity-Preserving Consistency, remaining stable across plural-valid interpretive frames rather than collapsing them into a single reward target.

Current reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) methods primarily rely on scalar rewards from a trained reward model (RM). While effective, scalar rewards are often noisy and fail to capture fine-grained preference differences, whereas RM hidden states encode richer semantic and preference information. We introduce the representation-aware advantage estimation, which leverages RM hidden states and models them as auxiliary signals for better advantage estimation. Specifically, we propose the Graph-based Advantage Estimation (GraphAE), treat each sampled group as a graph, where nodes correspond to responses and edges capture their similarity in the RM hidden space. Then advantages are computed via graph propagation, enabling each sample to incorporate contextual information from its neighbors. GraphAE is lightweight and can be seamlessly integrated into existing group-based RL algorithms. We apply GraphAE to GRPO, GSPO and RLOO, and conduct extensive experiments on different models and benchmarks. Empirical results show consistent improvements across three benchmarks, with gains of up to + 6.3 on Arena-Hard-v0.1, + 8.27 on AlpacaEval 2.0, and + 0.22 on MT-Bench. These results demonstrate that leveraging RM representations leads to more sample efficient and robust RLHF.

The ambition behind alignment training is to make large language models safe and useful. The primary mechanisms, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and its direct-optimization variants, shape the behavior of deployed language models by aligning them with ``human values.'' Yet the process is opaque. What values are being encoded; whose values are they; and how does alignment training encode them? A growing body of evidence suggests that these methods produce only functional compliance rather than deep alignment. We offer a mechanistic case study of this phenomenon for partisan political orientation with a comparison of the internal representations of Llama 3.1 8B before and after alignment training. We show that alignment training does not remove the structured partisan direction in the base model. Instead, it compresses the variance of the partisan signal to generate consistently balanced and non-partisan output. Sparse autoencoder decomposition reveals that policy-encoding features, which activate sporadically in the base model, are completely inactive in the Instruct model. Feature-level steering experiments confirm the causal disconnect. Alignment training thus encodes a norm of political neutrality, not by erasing the model's knowledge of partisanship, but by severing the causal pathway from partisan geometry to output generation. Importantly, this neutrality is functional, not structural so that the underlying geometry that enables partisan steering remains intact. The mechanisms that bypass RLHF's guardrails, such as inferring and amplifying a user's partisan identity, reactivate partisan generation. If alignment training operates by disconnecting rather than removing value-laden structure, then the same pattern may hold for other value domains, and the aligned model's behavior may be more fragile than its outputs suggest.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has enabled progress on reasoning-intensive tasks by relying on task-specific verifiers that provide automated correctness signals. However, many realistic language tasks are difficult to equip with reliable verifiers, motivating a growing reliance on reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). In this setting, we argue that a closer examination of how human feedback should be interpreted is essential. We introduce Regret-based Preference Optimization $(\textbf{RePO})$, which reframes RLHF through $\textit{regret minimization}$ rather than reward maximization. Human preferences are often shaped by $\textit{prospective}$ anticipation of outcomes and $\textit{counterfactual}$ comparisons to alternative behaviors, rather than by immediate, outcome-independent utility. $\textbf{RePO}$ captures this structure by modeling preferences as behavior-conditioned assessments of relative suboptimality. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks and human preference datasets demonstrate consistent performance gains, indicating that $\textbf{RePO}$ is an effective and human-aligned approach for training large language models.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is bottlenecked by reward hacking, where the policy exploits errors in a proxy reward model (RM) and produces high RM scores without genuine quality gains. A natural mitigation is pessimism: lowering rewards in regions where the RM is uncertain. However, standard scalar RMs provide no principled notion of uncertainty. We argue that the right object is a distributional reward model $p(r\mid x,y)$. Under either a Bayesian inference or a KL-distributionally robust optimization (KL-DRO) lens, the KL-regularized RLHF objective admits a closed-form effective reward $\tilde r(x,y) = \pmβ\log\mathbb{E}_p[e^{\pm r/β}]$. The pessimistic branch unifies the prior heuristics for RM ensemble aggregation: mean aggregation, worst-case optimization (WCO), and uncertainty-weighted optimization (UWO) all emerge as limits or truncations of this single expression. This also clarifies the implicit assumptions of each existing rule.

Native GPU kernel generation turns high-level tensor programs into executable, efficient low-level code. Existing Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle with this task, while execution-based reinforcement learning suffers from sparse rewards, reward hacking, and training instability. We present MusaCoder, a full-stack training framework for native GPU kernel generation on CUDA and MUSA backends. MusaCoder combines progressive kernel-oriented data synthesis, diversity-preserving rejection fine-tuning, and execution-feedback Reinforcement Learning (RL) through MooreEval, a distributed verifier and reward environment. To stabilize RL, MusaCoder introduces PrimeEcho for first-turn-anchored multi-turn rewards, Buffered Dynamic Retry for recovering signals from all-failed hard samples, and MirrorPop for off-policy sequence filtering. Experiments on KernelBench and a MUSA-ported variant show that MusaCoder outperforms strong open-source and proprietary baselines in both correctness and empirical speedup, with the 9B model matching or exceeding frontier closed-source models and the 27B model establishing a new state of the art. These results demonstrate not only the effectiveness of full-stack execution-feedback training for native kernel generation, but also the capability of Moore Threads GPUs to support the complete LLM post-training stack, providing a practical foundation for large-model training and optimization on emerging accelerators.

Mitigating social bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) presents a distinct alignment challenge: unlike verifiable tasks, bias lacks a single ground truth, creating a high-variance, subjective reward landscape. Previous preference-based fine-tuning methods have major trade-offs: Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) is limited by the lack of exploration inherent in offline training, while Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) can lead to training instability due to potentially unreliable critic estimates. In this paper, we propose BiasGRPO, a framework using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to stabilize alignment by normalizing rewards across a group of sampled completions. By substituting the value function with a group-relative baseline, our approach reduces instability while maintaining the exploration benefits of online training. We find that BiasGRPO outperforms DPO and PPO across multiple benchmarks, indicating its effectiveness. To adapt GRPO, we synthetically extend a dataset spanning multiple domains and contexts. We also create and release a custom bias reward model that effectively guides generation while being highly compute-efficient and avoiding knowledge degradation, providing a valuable resource that can be seamlessly integrated into multi-objective RLHF pipelines.

Cloud LLM fine-tuning platforms increasingly serve RLHF workloads, where a learned reward model is optimized as a proxy for human quality. As Gao et al. (2023) showed, this proxy diverges from world feedback (downstream eval metrics) under sustained optimization pressure, a phenomenon known as reward overoptimization. Existing platform schedulers ignore this divergence: non-clairvoyant schedulers optimize JCT without any quality signal, SLAQ-style quality-aware schedulers use training loss (a weaker proxy that drops monotonically through hacking), and classical per-job early stopping requires human monitoring and does not free shared GPUs. We propose EvalStop, a composable scheduling primitive that terminates jobs on k consecutive eval-score declines, releases GPUs, preserves the best checkpoint, and delegates to any base scheduler. We frame scheduler-level early stopping as a detection problem and evaluate it in a discrete-event simulator whose RLHF workload mixes reward-hacking and structurally healthy runs, with ground-truth labels hidden from schedulers. On RLHF-heavy workloads (80% RLHF, 64 GPUs), EvalStop achieves precision 98% / recall 99% / FPR 1.5% while improving JCT by 9% and cutting wasted compute by 22% over SRTF-Est (p<0.05). Trivial fixed-progress and loss-plateau competitors either incur 65% FPR on healthy RLHF or miss over half of true hacking cases. Gains compose across every base scheduler tested (9-25% JCT) and detection quality stays stable under eval noise (precision at least 91% at noise std <= 0.05) and hacking base rate (precision at least 89% across 20-80% hacking fractions).

Human-in-the-loop reinforcement learning (HIL-RL) improves sample efficiency in real-robot manipulation through online human intervention. However, successful trajectories may include suboptimal actions that deviate from the desired task-execution path and force human intervention. Existing HIL-RL methods typically apply the consistent credit assignment principle to all transitions, uniformly propagating discounted terminal rewards through suboptimal segments, ignoring the actual contribution of each transition to task success. This overestimates Q-values for critic learning and indirectly misguides actor updates toward suboptimal behavior patterns. To this end, we propose PACT, a Preference-calibrated Actor-Critic Training framework that leverages the implicit preference signals induced by intervention to perform credit reassignment on identified suboptimal segments while directly guiding policy training for unbiased critic-actor learning. Specifically, we first design a progress model that learns from human demonstration and identifies suboptimal segments for credit correction. Then, from the human action and resampled policy action at the intervention state, we build preference pairs to define a counterfactual advantage that penalizes Bellman targets of the identified suboptimal segment, enabling directional credit calibration. Moreover, we directly align the policy with human corrective actions in the bounded mean space, providing an additional signal beyond critic-guided updates. Across five real-robot manipulation tasks, PACT improves the average success rate by 24.5% and achieves 1.3 times faster convergence, thereby improving both RL sample efficiency and performance. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/HILRL-A1X-BC05.

RLHF evaluation should track how failures emerge, where they localize, and which warning signals appear before external quality degrades. We study this problem with a compact RLHF pipeline built for this paper, including PPO, DPO, uncertainty-penalized PPO (UP-PPO), reward-model uncertainty, approximate policy drift, diversity and repetition diagnostics, and two external LLM judges. Rather than treating reward hacking as a single terminal event, we classify matched checkpoint and prompt-level transitions by the directions of learned reward R_phi, judge scores R_dag and R2_dag, and their average R_dag. The main empirical findings are that aggressive PPO produces the clearest localized reward-hacking signal, UP-PPO reduces but does not eliminate that signal, row-level diagnostics reveal failures hidden by checkpoint averages, and pre-transition features partially anticipate future localized reward hacking. The central conclusion is methodological: RLHF failures are training dynamics that can be classified, localized, and partially anticipated, not only final-model pathologies. The repository is available at github.com/zabahana/rlhf-failure-modes-diagnostics. The pipeline is also deployed as a live interactive web demo for model comparison and diagnostic views at rlhf-failures.zelalem.ai.

Preference alignment is central to improving large language models, but standard reward-based formulations can be restrictive when human preferences are cyclic, non-transitive, or otherwise not representable by a scalar reward. Nash Learning from Human Feedback (NLHF) addresses this limitation by modeling alignment as a preference game and targeting a Nash equilibrium rather than a reward maximizer. However, the learning-theoretic foundations of scalable NLHF remain limited. Existing regret guarantees rely on oracle-based methods that estimate a general preference model and solve KL-regularized minimax problems, while iterative NLHF methods directly optimize policy-level preference losses and are easier to implement but lack regret guarantees. We study online iterative NLHF under general preference models and identify exploration as the key obstacle. First, we show that standard iterative NLHF can suffer an exponential dependence on the KL-regularization parameter, revealing that implicit exploration through policy updates is insufficient for controlling regret. Second, we propose an explicitly exploratory iterative NLHF algorithm that combines SFT-based regularization with adversarial policy exploration. The resulting method retains the direct policy optimization structure of iterative NLHF, avoids explicit preference model estimation, and achieves an $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret bound without an exponential dependence on the KL-regularization parameter. We show that the regret can be improved to $O(\log(T))$ with access to a minimax oracle, clarifying the computational-statistical tradeoff in learning general preference games. Finally, we instantiate our method for LLM fine-tuning and evaluate it on \texttt{Llama-3-8B-Instruct} across multiple benchmarks, where explicit exploration yields consistent improvements over existing NLHF baselines.

Preference-based reinforcement learning (PbRL) avoids explicit reward engineering by learning from pairwise human preference feedback. Existing offline PbRL methods typically follow a two-stage pipeline, first learning a reward or preference model from labeled preferences and then performing offline RL on unlabeled data. We revisit offline PbRL through the lens of reward-free representation learning (RFRL) from the zero-shot RL literature, and propose a new training framework that first learns latent successor-measure representations from reward-free offline data, followed by contrastive search and fine-tuning using preference data. Through extensive experiments and ablations, we show that our method achieves superior preference efficiency over offline PbRL baselines. This work is the first to connect RFRL with PbRL, highlighting its potential as a feedback-efficient solution. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/rl-bandits-lab/FB-PbRL.

Building strong reward models (RMs) for language model alignment is bottlenecked by the cost and difficulty of acquiring diverse and reliable preference data from human annotation or judge models. It is dramatically worse as the policy evolves beyond the static RM training. Therefore, we propose SAVE (Self-supervised reward model improvement via Value-Anchored On-policy feedback), a framework that grades on-policy responses as feedback by using the value function for on-policy RM training. SAVE naturally converts the reward-graded on-policy responses into supervision with a prompt-specific value head as an adaptive anchor. It computes RM advantages and filters ambiguous samples to update the RM via a contrastive objective. The effectiveness of SAVE for enhancing RM training is strongly validated through rigorous empirical evaluation across six diverse benchmarks. It achieves outperforming results across all datasets while maintaining consistent improvements across three RL algorithms (GRPO, RLOO, GSPO) and different policy backbones.

Calibration, the alignment of predicted probabilities with true outcome frequencies, is essential for reliable decision-making. While extensively studied for classification and regression, calibration has not been formally addressed for probabilistic label ranking, where the goal is to predict a distribution over orderings of a label set. Naively treating rankings as classes ignores their structure and fails to capture important modalities such as pairwise and top-k predictions. We formalize calibration for label ranking and develop a hierarchy of notions covering full rankings, sub-rankings, and top-k rankings. We prove that full-rank calibration implies the others but not conversely, and sub-ranking and top-k calibration are incomparable. Empirically, we find popular label ranking models are often poorly calibrated, with substantial differences between sub-ranking and top-k metrics. Applying our framework to RLHF reward models, we find that calibration correlates strongly but not perfectly with benchmark accuracy, suggesting it captures a meaningful quality dimension beyond top-1 accuracy. These findings motivate future work on understanding the downstream effects of miscalibration and developing methods to correct it.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) typically relies on static reward models to align Large Language Models with human preferences. However, human values are inherently diverse and heterogeneous, and a single reward model often lacks the robustness required to generalize to unseen preference domains. While existing multi-reward frameworks attempt to address this, they are often restricted to a fixed set of known domains and fail to adapt to unseen human distributions without costly retraining. In this work, we propose In-Context Reward Adaptation, a transformer-based framework designed to model diverse and unseen human preferences on the fly. By leveraging the in-context learning capabilities of transformers, our approach adaptively infers the underlying reward structure from a small set of preference demonstrations. We demonstrate that while a standard transformer architecture is insufficient for this task by characterizing an asymptotic bias to the ground-truth, incorporating human response time as an auxiliary input signal enables the model to successfully adapt to preferences from previously unseen domains. Our findings show that this approach provides a more robust foundation for preference modeling, allowing for the representation of heterogeneous rewards and preference distribution shift, and offering a scalable path toward more flexible human-AI alignment.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is the standard method to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences. In this work, we introduce alignment tampering, a potential vulnerability where the LLM undergoing alignment influences the preference dataset, causing RLHF to amplify undesired behaviors. This arises from core limitations of RLHF: (1) preference datasets are constructed from the LLM's own outputs, allowing it to influence them, and (2) pairwise comparisons only indicate which response is better, not why. These limitations can be exploited to cause alignment tampering. For example, if an LLM generates biased responses with higher quality, annotators will prefer them based on quality. However, preference labels do not distinguish quality from bias, and the reward model inherits this limitation. Optimizing such rewards through reinforcement learning or best-of-N sampling can amplify misaligned biases. Our experiments demonstrate amplification across diverse biases: from keyword bias to propaganda (e.g., sexism), brand promotion, and instrumental goal-seeking. Mitigation remains challenging, as existing techniques for robust RLHF fail to fully resolve alignment tampering without sacrificing response quality. These findings reveal structural vulnerabilities of current RLHF and emphasize the need to prevent this vulnerability. Project page: https://alignment-tampering.github.io/

Policy loss estimation remains a fundamental and long-standing challenge in reinforcement learning (RL) for diffusion language models (DLMs). We introduce Reinforcement Learning from Denoising Feedback (RLDF), a novel training paradigm that leverages feedback obtained from rollout and training processes to facilitate accurate and efficient policy loss estimation. To balance the trade-off between computational efficiency and estimation effectiveness, RLDF optimizes the model toward the clipped clean state from intermediate noisy states, combined with weighted timestep sampling over denoising timesteps. Extensive experiments demonstrate that RLDF achieves consistent and substantial improvements in both performance and generalizability across two representative DLM architectures, LLaDA and Dream, on multiple reasoning benchmarks. Our work lays a principled foundation for scalable reinforcement learning in diffusion language models. We build Drift, a training framework for DLMs, available at https://github.com/ant-research/Drift.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards can improve LLM reasoning, but learning remains sample-inefficient when terminal rewards are sparse. This has motivated a growing line of work on RL with textual feedback, where a critic model generates natural language feedback to guide a reasoning model (the actor), augmenting scalar rewards with richer learning signals. However, existing methods typically treat feedback as fixed or auxiliary, which misses a key property: feedback should not merely be correct, but should improve the policy (actor model) when provided in context. This motivates a paradigm of learnable textual feedback for RL. Yet the learnability and usefulness of feedback depend on the policy's ability to learn from it, making RL with learnable feedback an inherently bilevel problem. We formalize this coupling as a Stackelberg bilevel program and derive Bilevel Natural Language Actor-Critic (Bi-NAC), which jointly trains a critic to generate reward-improving feedback and an actor to exploit it. Across MATH-500, MBPP, and GPQA, Bi-NAC improves sample and parameter efficiency over RL and fixed-critic baselines: our 2B model outperforms the 3B GRPO baseline, achieving 46.6% versus 41.4% on MATH-500, while our 6B model surpasses the 7B GRPO baseline, achieving 49.3% versus 43.6% on GPQA.

Human feedback often arrives as preferences rather than calibrated numeric rewards, motivating reinforcement learning from preferential feedback, also referred to as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). We present a rigorous theoretical study of preference-only learning in episodic kernel MDPs. In each episode, the learner deploys two policies from a common start state and receives a single binary label indicating which trajectory is preferred, modeled by a Bradley--Terry--Luce link on the difference of cumulative (unobserved) rewards. Under kernel-based assumptions on the reward and transition functions (one of the most general models amenable to theoretical analysis) we develop preference-based value estimation and confidence sets tailored to end-of-episode comparisons. We prove high-probability regret bounds that scale sublinearly in the number of episodes, implying that the value of the learned policy converges to that of the optimal policy.

Ventilator decision support requires sequential decisions that track evolving physiology and disease trajectories while respecting safety boundaries and clinician specific tuning styles. Rule based approaches rarely generalize personalization, and end to end reinforcement learning or single large language model systems remain difficult to control and audit. We propose the Ventilator Decision Support System (VDSS), a human in the loop multi agent framework that coordinates modular decision components through contract driven structured interfaces and produces traceable evidence for review. VDSS performs online preference adaptation with a contextual bandit, updating clinician specific preferences from the final accepted decision at each adjustment cycle and using them to guide subsequent recommendations. Structured rejection feedback triggers targeted replanning to reduce unproductive iterations and improve interaction stability. Retrospective ICU trajectory replay with expert review indicates higher recommendation acceptability and fewer interaction rounds to reach an acceptable plan, supporting clinically deployable human AI collaboration.

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has emerged as a popular alternative to Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), offering theoretical equivalence with simpler implementation. We prove this equivalence is conditional rather than universal, depending on an implicit assumption frequently violated in practice: the RLHF-optimal policy must prefer human-preferred responses. When this assumption fails, DPO optimizes relative advantage over the reference policy rather than absolute alignment with human preferences, leading to pathological convergence where policies decrease DPO loss while preferring dispreferred responses. We characterize when this assumption is violated, show the existence of an undesirable solution space, and prove that DPO and RLHF optimize fundamentally different objectives in such cases. To address this, we introduce Constrained Preference Optimization (CPO), augmenting RLHF with constraints for provable alignment. We further provide a geometric interpretation through soft margin ranking, revealing that DPO implements margin ranking with potentially negative targets. Our theoretical analysis establishes when DPOs' guarantees hold and provides solutions preserving simplicity with provable alignment. Comprehensive experiments on standard benchmarks demonstrate that CPO achieves state-of-the-art performance. Code is available at: https://github.com/visitworld123/CPO.

Recent advances in one-step text-to-image generation have enabled real-time synthesis with remarkable efficiency and quality. Previous reinforcement learning methods for one-step generators combine image-space reward optimization with diffusion noisy-space distribution matching. This paradigm brings challenges due to a mismatch between terminal reward optimization and the underlying generative dynamics. As a result, optimization tends to exploit stochastic degrees of freedom, often improving reward at the expense of image fidelity. To address this issue, we propose Diff-Instruct with Diffused Reward (DIDR), a data-free trajectory-level alignment framework derived from Integral KL minimization. DIDR propagates the RLHF-optimal reward-tilted clean-image distribution across all noise levels along the diffusion trajectory. We show that this objective admits the same minimizer as clean-image RLHF, while naturally inducing the Diffused Reward Score (DRS), which acts as a reward-driven correction to the reference score function. To make this practical, we further introduce the Diffused Reward Proxy (DRP), an efficient estimator of DRS based on differentiable short-step denoising. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DIDR consistently Pareto-dominates existing one-step SDXL baselines. Moreover, when transferred to a 6B DiT backbone (Z-Image), DIDR surpasses its 50-step teacher in preference alignment while requiring only a single generation step.

Text classification models are typically trained via supervised fine-tuning (SFT). However, SFT essentially performs behavior cloning from instance-wise labels and thus fails to adequately capture relative preference relations among samples, which limits the model's ability to shape decision boundaries and calibrate predictive confidence. In this paper, we propose ClaHF, a human feedback-inspired reinforcement learning (RL) framework for text classification that integrates preference modeling and RL optimization into the classification pipeline without requiring additional human annotations. Unlike prior work that relies solely on instance-wise supervision, ClaHF constructs multiple candidate predictions together with their relative ranking relations, and jointly models the Top-1 preference and the ordering among non-optimal candidates within a reward model (RM). This design converts conventional label supervision into preference signals that are directly applicable to policy optimization. We conduct systematic evaluations on eight classification tasks spanning three categories of scenarios. Results demonstrate that ClaHF consistently improves both classification performance and confidence calibration across diverse language models (LMs). The data and code are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ClaHF.

Standard RLHF relies on transitive scalar rewards, failing to capture the cyclic nature of human preferences. While some approaches like the General Preference Model (GPM) address this, we identify a theoretical limitation: their implicit formulation entangles hierarchy with cyclicity, failing to guarantee dominant solutions. To address this, we propose the Hybrid Reward-Cyclic (HRC) model, which utilizes game-theoretic decomposition to explicitly disentangle preferences into orthogonal transitive (scalar) and cyclic (vector) components. Complementing this, we introduce Dynamic Self-Play Preference Optimization (DSPPO), which treats alignment as a time-varying game to progressively guide the policy toward the Nash equilibrium. Synthetic data experiments further validate HRC's structural superiority in mixed transitive--cyclic settings, where HRC converges faster and achieves higher accuracy than GPM. Experiments on RewardBench 2 demonstrate that HRC consistently improves over both BT and GPM baselines (e.g., +1.23% on Gemma-2B-it). In particular, its superior performance in the Ties domain empirically validates the model's robustness in handling complex, non-strict preferences. Extensive downstream evaluations on AlpacaEval 2.0, Arena-Hard-v0.1, and MT-Bench confirm the efficacy of our framework. Notably, when using Gemma-2B-it as the base preference model, HRC+DSPPO achieves a peak length-controlled win-rate of 44.75% on AlpacaEval 2.0 and 46.8% on Arena-Hard-v0.1, significantly outperforming SPPO baselines trained with BT or GPM. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/lab-klc/Hybrid-Reward-Cyclic.

While reinforcement learning (RL) enables robots to acquire skills autonomously, its real-world deployment is severely limited by inefficient and unsafe exploration. Human-in-the-loop interventions offer a practical solution, yet existing methods typically exploit these interventions as auxiliary training signals, without fully capturing the richer information they provide about when and how autonomy should be guided. Human interventions often encode relative preferences over behavior under safety and task constraints, rather than prescribing exact actions to imitate. Motivated by this perspective, we propose Online Human Preference as Guidance in Reinforcement Learning (OHP-RL), a framework that leverages human interventions as preference information to guide policy learning. OHP-RL introduces a state-dependent preference gate that adaptively regulates when and to what extent human interventions should shape policy learning. This design enables the agent to benefit from intermittent and imperfect human feedback while preserving autonomous exploration and stable policy optimization. We evaluate OHP-RL on three challenging real-world contact-rich manipulation tasks on a Franka robot. Across all tasks, OHP-RL consistently achieves strong success rates, faster convergence, and substantially lower human intervention effort than prior approaches. Moreover, the learned policies exhibit more stable and human-aligned behavior throughout training.

We study a networked multi-agent reinforcement learning (NMARL) problem with human feedback in an infinite-horizon setting, where agents interact over an underlying network with localized state dependencies and aim to collaboratively maximize the average discounted return. Existing approaches with preference feedback are primarily developed for single-agent settings and rely on centralized training, which limits their scalability and applicability to large-scale networked multi-agent systems. To address this, we introduce a novel human feedback mechanism based on spatiotemporally truncated trajectories, defined as $H$-horizon trajectory pairs aggregated over each agent's $κ$-hop neighborhood. Building on this, we develop a distributed zeroth-order policy gradient algorithm, where each agent estimates its local policy gradient using human preference feedback generated from both the current joint policy and a perturbed joint policy drawn from zero-mean Gaussian distribution. Specifically, the algorithm is fully distributed, as the feedback received by each agent depends solely on the state-action information within its $κ$-hop neighborhood and does not require explicit reward signals or centralized control. We further rigorously establish that the proposed algorithm converges to an $ε$-stationary point with polynomial sample complexity. Finally, simulation results in a stochastic GridWorld environment and a predator-prey environment further demonstrate that the effectiveness and scalability of the proposed algorithm in achieving collaborative optimization based solely on human preference feedback.

LLM-based multi-agent pipelines flip from correct to incorrect answers under simulated peer disagreement at rates we term yield, a vulnerability widely attributed to RLHF-induced sycophancy. We test this attribution across four model families and find it largely wrong: pretrained base models exhibit the same substitution pattern as their Instruct variants, averaging higher yield than Instruct. Using activation patching, we localize the corruption to a narrow mid-layer window where attention carries the causal weight and MLP contribution is negligible; patching above this window restores 96% of the clean-to-pressured P(correct) gap. The attack surface decomposes into two independent factors (channel framing and consensus strength) whose interaction produces a 47.5 percentage-point yield gap at majority consensus, preserved across jury sizes $N \in \{4, 5, 6\}$. Two converging activation-space interventions show that pressure suppresses clean-reasoning features rather than activating a new sycophancy circuit. A single correctly-arguing dissenter reduces yield by 54-73 percentage points across all framings tested, whereas the strongest prompt-level defense fails on attack variants outside its design surface. Mitigations should target the mechanism, structured dissent at the pipeline level, rather than prompt-level defenses.

RLHF is widely used to align flow-matching text-to-image models with human preferences, but often leads to severe diversity collapse after fine-tuning. In RL, diversity is often assumed to correlate with policy entropy, motivating entropy regularization. However, we show this intuition breaks in flow models: policy entropy remains constant, even while perceptual diversity collapses. We explain this mismatch both theoretically and empirically: the constant entropy arises from the fixed, pre-defined noise schedule, while the diversity collapse is driven by the mode-seeking nature of policy gradients. As a result, policy entropy fails to prevent the model from converging to a narrow high-reward region in the perceptual space. To this end, we introduce perceptual entropy that captures diversity in a perceptual space and maintains the property of standard entropy. Building upon this insight, we propose two entropy-regularized strategies, Perceptual Entropy Constraint and Perceptual Constraints on Generation Space, to preserve perceptual diversity and improve the quality. Experiments across two base models, neural and rule-based rewards, and three perceptual spaces demonstrate consistent gains in the quality-diversity trade-off; PEC achieves the best overall score of 0.734 (vs. baseline's 0.366); a complementary setting of PEC further reaches a diversity average of 0.989 (vs. baseline's 0.047). Our project page (https://xiaofeng-tan.github.io/projects/PEC) is publicly available.

Skill libraries enable large language model agents to reuse experience from past interactions, but most existing libraries store skills as isolated entries and retrieve them only by semantic similarity. This leads to two key challenges for compositional tasks. Firstly, an agent must identify not only relevant skills but also how they depend on and build upon each other. Secondly, it also makes library maintenance difficult, since the system lacks structural cues for deciding when skills should be merged, split, or removed. We propose SKILLGRAPH, a framework that represents reusable skills as nodes in a directed graph, with typed edges encoding prerequisite, enhancement, and co-occurrence relations. Given a new task, SKILLGRAPH retrieves not just individual skills, but an ordered skill subgraph that can guide multi-step decision making. The graph is continuously updated from agent trajectories and reinforcement learning feedback, allowing both the skill library and the agent policy to improve together. Experiments on ALFWorld, WebShop, and seven search-augmented QA tasks show that SKILLGRAPH achieves state-of-the-art performance against memory-augmented RL methods, with especially large gains on complex tasks that require composing multiple skills.

For AI systems to be useful to humans, they must understand and act in accordance with our values and preferences. Since specifying preferences is a hard task, inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) aims to develop methods that allow for inferring preferences from observed behavior. However, IRL assumes the human to be approximately optimal. This is a big limitation in cases where the human themselves may be learning to act optimally in an environment. In this paper, we formalize the problem of learning the preferences of a learning agent: a predictor observes a learner acting online and tries to infer the underlying reward function being (initially suboptimally) optimized by the learner. We model the learner as either being no-regret, or as converging to an optimal Boltzmann policy over time. In each of these settings, we establish theoretical guarantees for various preference learning algorithms, or otherwise show that such guarantees are impossible.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has become a cornerstone technique for post-training large language models. While most existing approaches rely on the reverse KL-regularization, recent empirical studies have begun exploring alternative divergences (e.g., forward KL, chi-squared) as regularizers in RLHF. However, a unified theoretical understanding of general $f$-divergence regularization remains under-explored. To fill this gap, this work develops a comprehensive theoretical framework for online RLHF with a general $f$-divergence regularized objective. Rather than treating each possible divergence function individually, we adopt a holistic perspective across the entire function class and propose two algorithms based on distinct sampling principles. The first extends the classical optimism principle with a carefully designed exploration bonus, while the second introduces a new method that exploits the sensitivity of the optimal policy to reward perturbations under $f$-divergence regularization. Theoretical analysis shows that $O(\log T)$ regret and $O(1/T)$ sub-optimality gap are achievable, establishing provable efficiency of both algorithms and, to the best of our knowledge, the first performance bounds for online RLHF under general $f$-divergence regularization.

How can we make models robust to even imperfect human feedback? In reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), human preferences over model outputs are used to train a reward model that assigns scalar values to responses. Because these rewards are inferred from pairwise comparisons, this learning depends on an assumed relationship between latent reward differences and observed preferences, typically modeled using a Boltzmann formulation in which a rationality parameter beta informs how consistently preferences reflect reward differences. In practice, beta is typically treated as a fixed constant that reflects assumed uniform annotator reliability. However, human feedback is not this simplistic in practice: real human judgments are shaped by cognitive biases, leading to systematic deviations from reward-consistent behavior that arise contextually. To address this, we treat rationality as context- and annotation-dependent. We design an approach to dynamically adjust the rationality parameter beta during reward learning using an LLM-as-judge to assess the likely presence of cognitive biases. This approach effectively downweights comparisons that are likely to reflect biased or unreliable judgments. Empirically, we show that this approach learns a more rational downstream model, even when finetuning on datasets with strongly biased preferences.

Current critic-less RLHF methods aggregate multi-objective rewards via an arithmetic mean, leaving them vulnerable to constraint neglect: high-magnitude success in one objective can numerically offset critical failures in others (e.g., safety or formatting), masking low-performing "bottleneck" rewards vital for reliable multi-objective alignment. We propose Reward-Variance Policy Optimization (RVPO), a risk-sensitive framework that penalizes inter-reward variance during advantage aggregation, shifting the objective from "maximize sum" to "maximize consistency." We show via Taylor expansion that a LogSumExp (SoftMin) operator effectively acts as a smooth variance penalty. We evaluate RVPO on rubric-based medical and scientific reasoning with up to 17 concurrent LLM-judged reward signals (Qwen2.5-3B/7B/14B) and on tool-calling with rule-based constraints (Qwen2.5-1.5B/3B). By preventing the model from neglecting difficult constraints to exploit easier objectives, RVPO improves overall scores on HealthBench (0.261 vs. 0.215 for GDPO at 14B, $p < 0.001$) and maintains competitive accuracy on GPQA-Diamond without the late-stage degradation observed in other multi-reward methods, demonstrating that variance regularization mitigates constraint neglect across model scales without sacrificing general capabilities.

Agentic artificial intelligence systems produce outputs through sequences of interdependent autonomous decisions, yet standard evaluation assesses outputs alone and cannot diagnose the underlying process. We develop a behavioral evaluation methodology that complements output-level testing by scoring the intermediate decision process itself. Behavioral traces logged at each autonomous decision point are grouped into five-day episodes and scored along six domain-specific dimensions (regime detection, routing, adaptation, risk calibration, strategy coherence, error recovery) by an ensemble of three large language model (LLM) judges. A perturbation procedure that corrupts one dimension while leaving the other five intact confirms dimension specificity; cross-model agreement reaches Krippendorff's alpha = 0.85. The composite behavioral score correlates at Spearman rho = 0.72 with realized 20-day Sharpe ratio. Closing the loop, the framework converts deficient per-dimension scores into a credit-assigned penalty added to the Soft Actor-Critic reward. Three fine-tuning cycles, confined to validation data, reduce one-day MAPE from 0.61% to 0.54% (11.5% relative; p<0.001, d=0.31) on the held-out 2017 to 2025 test period, significant under Diebold-Mariano and localized by Giacomini-White to the high-volatility regime. The methodology is application-agnostic and applies to any agentic system whose intermediate decisions can be logged.

Online reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as a promising paradigm for aligning large language models (LLMs) by continuously collecting new preference feedback during training. A foundational challenge in this setting is exploration, which requires algorithms that enable the LLMs to generate informative comparisons that improve sample-efficiency in online RLHF. Existing exploration strategies often derive bonuses via on-policy expectations, which are difficult to estimate reliably from the limited historical preference data available during training; as a result, the policy can prematurely down-weight under-explored regions that may contain high-value behaviors. In this paper, we propose data-dependent exploration for preference optimization (DEPO), a simple and scalable method that leverages historical data to construct an extra uncertainty bonus for high-uncertainty regions, encouraging exploration toward potentially high-value data. Theoretically, we provide a data-dependent regret bound for the proposed algorithm, showing that it adapts to the hardness of the learning task itself and can be tighter than worst-case bounds in practice. Empirically, the proposed method consistently outperforms strong baselines across benchmarks, demonstrating improved sample efficiency.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) typically assumes a static or non-strategic reward model (RM). In iterative deployment, however, the policy generates the data on which the RM is retrained, creating a feedback loop. Building on the Stackelberg game formulation of this interaction, we derive an analytical decomposition of the policy's true optimization gradient into a standard policy gradient and a parameter-steering term that captures the policy's influence on the RM's future parameters. We show that standard iterative RLHF, which drops this steering term entirely, suffers from alignment collapse: the policy systematically exploits the RM's blind spots, producing low-quality, high-reward outputs whose feedback reinforces the very errors it exploits. To mitigate this, we propose foresighted policy optimization (FPO), a mechanism-design intervention that restores the missing steering term by regularizing the policy's parameter-steering effect on RM updates. We instantiate FPO via a scalable first-order approximation and demonstrate that it prevents alignment collapse on both controlled environments and an LLM alignment pipeline using Llama-3.2-1B.