Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

RED: Unleashing Token-Level Rewards from Holistic Feedback via Reward Redistribution

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read RED assigns each generated token a reward by subtracting the reward model's score for the prefix so far from its score one step later, yielding fine-grained credit without retraining the reward model, at minimal extra cost, and with the…

desk verdict RED is a clean, honest shaping trick—sound theory and a simple method, but the empirical case is under-validated and the appendix has one suspect derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08302 v2 pith:2LPLKVGT submitted 2024-11-13 cs.CL cs.AI

Jiahui Li , Lin Li , Tai-wei Chang , Kun Kuang , Long Chen , Jun Zhou , Cheng Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI MSC 68T5068T07
keywords rewardredistributiontoken-levelrewardsRLHFcreditassignmentsequencemodelpotential-basedshapingPPORLOO
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

RED claims that the sparse, sequence-level reward used in RLHF can be converted into token-level rewards at negligible extra cost, by subtracting the reward model's score for the prefix so far from its score one token later. Because the reward model's value head already returns a scalar for any prefix, the method needs no retraining, no architectural change, and none of the extra reward-model training that earlier dense-reward methods require. The key identity is that these per-token rewards telescope back to the original sequence score, so the redistributed training objective has the same optimal policy as standard RLHF. On question answering, summarization, and safety-alignment tasks, RED improves both PPO and RLOO over sparse-reward baselines and over attention-based credit assignment. If correct, the method makes fine-grained credit assignment a drop-in upgrade for essentially any RLHF pipeline that already has a reward model.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Sequence-MDP view of language generation, used with a time-difference decomposition of the reward model's own scores. The reward model is treated as a potential function on prefixes; each token's reward is the change in potential it induces. This makes RED a form of potential-based reward shaping, and the paper proves that the advantage function is unchanged, so the optimal policy under RLHF is preserved. A convex combination hyperparameter $\beta_c$ blends token-level and sequence-level rewards, and the method plugs into PPO and REINFORCE-style (RLOO) algorithms.

What would settle it

A concrete test: compare the reward model's prefix scores $R_\phi(x, y_{\le t})$ with human ratings of partial responses across a held-out set. If the prefix scores are roughly flat, dominated by prompt length, or only weakly correlated with quality on prefixes, the difference rewards carry little signal, and RED's improvement over sparse-reward RLHF should disappear in a controlled comparison.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the sparse, sequence-level reward used in RLHF can be converted into token-level rewards by temporal differentiation: $r_t^{\mathrm{RM}} = R_\phi(x, y_{\le t}) - R_\phi(x, y_{\le t-1})$. Because the reward model's value head already produces a scalar for every prefix, no retraining or architectural change is needed. The sum of these per-token rewards telescopes to the original sequence score, so the redistributed MDP is return-equivalent to the original one, and the optimal policy is preserved. Experiments on question answering (Nectar), summarization (TL;DR), and safety alignment (SafeRLHF) with PPO and RLOO show consistent improvement over sparse-reward baselines and over attention-based credit assignment (ABC).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a reward model trained on complete responses produces meaningful scores when its value head is applied to incomplete prefixes; if those prefix scores are noisy or uncalibrated, the redistributed token rewards can mislead training rather than help it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any RLHF pipeline that already has a sequence reward model can obtain dense token rewards at negligible extra compute by reusing the same value head on prefixes.
  • RED is agnostic to the RL algorithm; it improves both PPO and RLOO, and can be applied separately to reward and cost models in multi-objective safety alignment.
  • Because the optimal policy is unchanged, RED's gains are training-efficiency gains, not a shift in the alignment objective.
  • The paper shows DPO implicitly performs a form of reward redistribution, suggesting dense-credit methods and preference optimization are connected through the same telescoping identity.
  • In multi-reward safety settings, redistributed cost signals reduce cost scores and increase safety rates relative to sparse baselines in most configurations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is step-level credit for reasoning tasks by segmenting a response into reasoning steps and applying the same difference rule to step-boundary prefixes; the paper notes token-level assignment is too fine for multi-step reasoning.
  • The difference reward is essentially a first-order sensitivity measure of the reward model; one could analyze its variance to detect reward-hacking-prone tokens or to debug reward models.
  • One could test RED with any reward model family; if prefix scores are poorly calibrated, RED should underperform, making prefix-score calibration a cheap predictor of whether RED will help a given pipeline.
  • The convex-combination hyperparameter $\beta_c$ may interact with the KL penalty, and the sensitivity analysis in the paper only varies $\beta_c$ on one task, so that interaction is worth mapping.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RED (REward reDistribution), a method that converts the sparse, sequence-level reward produced by an off-the-shelf reward model into token-level rewards by taking the temporal difference of the reward model's scores on partial sequences (Eq. 6). The authors argue that the sum of these redistributed rewards equals the original sequence reward up to a prompt-dependent constant, so the optimal policy is preserved via potential-based reward shaping or return-equivalent Sequence-MDP arguments. They integrate RED into PPO and RLOO and report experiments on question answering (Nectar), summarization (TL;DR), and safety/helpfulness (SafeRLHF), comparing against sparse-reward baselines, attention-based credit assignment (ABC), reward shaping, and Lagrangian methods. The central theoretical claim is that token-level credit can be obtained at negligible cost and without retraining the reward model; the central empirical claim is that RED consistently improves the underlying RLHF methods.

Significance. If the claims hold, RED is an attractive and simple contribution to RLHF: it requires no additional training, no reward-model modification, and no human token-level labels, and it is grounded in a clean potential-shaping argument. The derivation is transparent and the connection to existing sequence-level RLHF is clearly drawn. The paper also gives credit to the literature on return-equivalent SDPs and potential-based shaping, and it explicitly attempts to evaluate the quality of the redistributed rewards (Appendix C.2). However, the empirical evidence as presented does not yet support the strong claim of consistent superiority: several table entries contradict the headline, no uncertainty quantification is reported, the reward-model evaluation is partly circular, and the core assumption that reward models produce meaningful scores on incomplete prefixes is only weakly validated. The manuscript is likely to be of interest to the RLHF community, but the empirical claims need substantial revision and additional evidence before publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (6), and Figure 2] The method's central mechanism assumes that R_phi(x, y_<=t), the reward model's output when its value head is applied to an incomplete prefix, is a meaningful, calibrated estimate of partial-sequence quality. However, the reward model is trained by Eq. (2) exclusively on complete responses, so nothing guarantees that these prefix scores are not arbitrary or noisy. The only direct evidence provided is Appendix C.2, a coarse human study in which 20 annotators rated 10 questions each and 97% of token-wise reward sequences were deemed 'reasonable'; this checks whether highlighted tokens look important, not whether the prefix scores are calibrated or correlate with actual token influence. Since the claimed benefit of RED over sparse RLHF depends entirely on this assumption, the manuscript needs direct validation: e.g., comparison of prefix-score calibration against held-out partial-response judgments, correlation of RED token rewards with token-level human importance ratings, or ablations with deliberately corrupted prefix scores. As written, the OOD prefix-score concern is load-bearing and under-validated.
  2. [Section 4.4, Tables 3 and 4] The paper's abstract and Section 4 claim that RED 'consistently improves' the baseline methods, but Table 4 contradicts this claim. On SafeRLHF with LLaMA3, PPO-R.S-RED achieves a reward score of 14.242 and a win rate of 47.66%, both worse than PPO-R.S's 14.870 and 58.08%; on the same setup, RLOO-R.S-RED raises the cost score from 0.852 to 2.049 and lowers the safe rate from 44.19% to 36.99%. These are not small or ignorable discrepancies, and they undermine the central empirical claim. The authors should either present a more nuanced claim, analyze why RED fails in these configurations, or provide additional evidence that the overall pattern is nevertheless positive. The current presentation is not proportionate to the data.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Tables 1, 2, 4] The reward-model evaluation is partially circular. The primary evaluation metric is the average reward score of an off-the-shelf reward model, and this same reward model is used to generate the dense training signal in Eq. (6) and Eq. (7). It is therefore expected that RED-trained policies obtain higher scores from that reward model, even if the underlying human-aligned quality is unchanged or worse. The paper does include GPT-4 and human evaluations, which is commendable, but those are not reported for every configuration and in some cases (e.g., Table 2's TL;DR results) the GPT-4 advantage is much smaller than the reward-score advantage. The authors should report the full set of GPT-4/human evaluations for all main configurations and, ideally, show the correlation between reward-model scores and independent human judgments to establish that the reward-score gains are not merely an artifact of training toward the same model.
  4. [Section 4, Tables 1-4 and Appendix C.2] No error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests are reported anywhere in the empirical sections. All tables present single point estimates, despite the stochastic nature of RL training and the small evaluation sets (e.g., GPT-4 win rates on what appear to be 200-example sets). Given the variability visible in the training curves in Figure 5 and the mixed results in Table 4, the current evidence is insufficient to support the conclusion that RED is consistently superior. The authors should report means and standard deviations over multiple seeds and, where feasible, statistical significance tests or at least bootstrap confidence intervals for the main win-rate comparisons.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The word 'reward redistribition' is misspelled in the abstract and in the first occurrence in Section 1; it should be 'reward redistribution'.
  2. [Section 3.2] The notation R_phi(x, y_<=-1) is introduced in the display equation after Eq. (6), but it is used before it is defined. Define R_phi(x, y_<=-1) := R_phi(x, ∅) immediately before Eq. (6).
  3. [Figure 1] The numbers in the right panel of Figure 1 are difficult to read: '0.400.10' and similar strings appear to be concatenated values. The figure should be reformatted so that each token's reward is clearly separated and legible.
  4. [Table 12] The entry '48..0%' in the RLOO-RED vs. RLOO TL;DR row appears to be a typo; it should likely be '48.0%'.
  5. [Section 4.4] The formula for the reward-shaping baseline, r_t^agg = 1/2 * (r_tilde_t + alpha * c_tilde_t) with alpha = -1, is stated with a sign convention that is easy to misread. Since the cost model 'assesses how harmful each generation is', the text should clarify whether higher cost scores are worse and how the alpha = -1 combination maps to the reward used in training.
  6. [Appendix B.5 and Section 4.4] The GPT-4 evaluation prompt for SafeRLHF explicitly instructs the evaluator to prioritize harmlessness, which explains why the GPT-4 results diverge from the reward-model results. This is a relevant methodological point and should be mentioned in the main text when the mismatch is discussed, rather than only in the appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: RED's derivation is a telescoping identity plus standard potential-based shaping, with independent GPT-4 and human evaluations.

full rationale

The core derivation, Eq. 6, defines per-token rewards as telescoping differences of an off-the-shelf reward model's prefix scores, and the paper explicitly shows the sum collapses to R_phi(x,y) - R_phi(x,empty). The claim that the optimal policy is unchanged is supported by external, machine-checkable theory: potential-based reward shaping (Ng et al., 1999) and the standard equivalence-class argument for KL-constrained RLHF (Rafailov et al., 2024b). No parameter is fitted to the target result, and beta_c is an acknowledged convex-combination hyperparameter following Chan et al. (2024), not a hidden fit. The reward-model evaluation tables do use the same R_phi that produces the dense training signal, but both RED and its baselines optimize R_phi, so the relative comparison is not forced by construction, and the paper additionally reports independent GPT-4 and human evaluations. The main weakness - that the value head may produce uncalibrated scores on incomplete prefixes - is an out-of-distribution validity concern, not a circularity, since the paper does not define 'token credit' as anything other than the prefix-score difference and does not use the claimed benefit as an input to the derivation. Self-citations (e.g., Li et al., 2024) appear only in related-work context and are not load-bearing. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external theorems and independent evaluations.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main new assumption is that prefix scores from a sequence-level reward model are meaningful enough for token-level credit assignment. This is plausible for causal reward models but untested outside the paper's own evaluations. The only genuinely new free parameter is beta_c, which is mostly set to 1. No invented physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • beta_c = 1.0 default; 0.5 for Qwen2.5 on TL;DR
    Hyperparameter controlling the convex combination of token-level and sequence-level rewards in Eq. 7. The paper tunes it per task and reports different values in Table 7.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A sequence-level reward model trained on full responses yields meaningful scalar scores when applied to incomplete prefixes.
    Eq. 6 computes R_phi(x, y_<=t) for every prefix, but the reward model is trained only on complete sequences via Eq. 2.
  • domain assumption The reward model provides per-position hidden states that can be fed to the value head at every intermediate token.
    Figure 2 and Eq. 6 require prefix scores; this requires a causal architecture with a token-level value head.
  • standard math Potential-based reward shaping preserves the optimal policy, and return-equivalent SDPs share optimal policies.
    Used in Section 3.3 to claim RED does not alter the optimal policy, following Ng et al. (1999) and Arjona-Medina et al. (2019).
  • standard math The optimal policy for the KL-constrained RLHF objective has the exponential form of Eq. 10.
    Used in Appendix A.2 to connect RED with DPO, following Rafailov et al. (2024b).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RED: Unleashing Token-Level Rewards from Holistic Feedback via Reward Redistribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2LPLKVGT

@misc{pith2026241108302,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RED: Unleashing Token-Level Rewards from Holistic Feedback via Reward Redistribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2LPLKVGT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08302}
}
read the original abstract

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) offers a promising approach to aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Typically, a reward model is trained or supplied to act as a proxy for humans in evaluating generated responses during the reinforcement training phase. However, current reward models operate as sequence-to-one models, allocating a single, sparse, and delayed reward to an entire output sequence. This approach may overlook the significant contributions of individual tokens toward the desired outcome. To this end, we propose a more fine-grained, token-level guidance approach for RL training. Specifically, we introduce RED, a novel reward redistribition method that evaluates and assigns specific credit to each token using an off-the-shelf reward model. Utilizing these fine-grained rewards enhances the model's understanding of language nuances, leading to more precise performance improvements. Notably, our method does not require modifying the reward model or introducing additional training steps, thereby incurring minimal computational costs. Experimental results across diverse datasets and tasks demonstrate the superiority of our approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08302 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: The training paradigm of reinforcement learning from human feedback typically encompasses three stages. Our proposed method is applied in the final stage, where we redistribute the holistic rewards at the terminal time-step to provide a fine-grained and immediate reward for each generated token. This approach aims to more effectively guide the optimization of LLMs. Right: An example of reward redistribution, w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reward Computation in RLHF. (a) Traditional reward model: Computes a sparse reward by applying a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ablations and sensitive analysis on the Nectar dataset with PPO. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pseudo code of RED. TL;DR. The TL;DR comparison3 dataset (Stiennon et al., 2020) is designed for reward modeling, and it is composed of two distinct parts: comparisons and axis. In the comparisons part, human annotators were tasked with selecting the better summary fro…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance comparison for various methods on the Nectar evaluation set. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. S2T-RLHF: Hierarchical Credit Assignment for Stable Preference-Based RLHF

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    S2T-RLHF splits each response-level RLHF reward into sentence shares and then token shares, via bargaining and Dirichlet weighting, yielding steadier training with competitive preference alignment.

  2. Response-Level Rewards Are All You Need for Online Reinforcement Learning in LLMs: A Mathematical Perspective

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    Under the assumption that the response reward equals the discounted sum of token rewards, response-level rewards suffice for unbiased token-level policy gradients in LLMs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, and 1 others. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Arash Ahmadian, Chris Cremer, Matthias Gall \'e , Marzieh Fadaee, Julia Kreutzer, Olivier Pietquin, A \"U st \"u n, and Sara Hooker. 2024. Back to basics: Revisiting reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms, 2024. Cited on, page 7

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    AI@Meta. 2024. https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/MODEL_CARD.md Llama 3 model card

    2024

  4. [4]

    Jose A Arjona-Medina, Michael Gillhofer, Michael Widrich, Thomas Unterthiner, Johannes Brandstetter, and Sepp Hochreiter. 2019. Rudder: Return decomposition for delayed rewards. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Zhaohan Daniel Guo, Bilal Piot, Remi Munos, Mark Rowland, Michal Valko, and Daniele Calandriello. 2024. A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human preferences. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 4447--4455. PMLR

    2024

  6. [6]

    Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, and 1 others. 2022. Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In Proceedings of the acl workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for machine translation and/or summarization, pages 65--72

    2005

  8. [8]

    Dimitri P Bertsekas. 1997. Nonlinear programming. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(3):334--334

    work page 1997

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Vivek S Borkar. 1997. Stochastic approximation with two time scales. Systems & Control Letters, 29(5):291--294

    1997

  2. [10]

    Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E Terry. 1952. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39(3/4):324--345

    1952

  3. [11]

    Alex James Chan, Hao Sun, Samuel Holt, and Mihaela van der Schaar. 2024. Dense reward for free in reinforcement learning from human feedback. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

  4. [12]

    Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  5. [13]

    Josef Dai, Xuehai Pan, Ruiyang Sun, Jiaming Ji, Xinbo Xu, Mickel Liu, Yizhou Wang, and Yaodong Yang. 2023. Safe rlhf: Safe reinforcement learning from human feedback. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  6. [14]

    Dorottya Demszky, Diyi Yang, David S Yeager, Christopher J Bryan, Margarett Clapper, Susannah Chandhok, Johannes C Eichstaedt, Cameron Hecht, Jeremy Jamieson, Meghann Johnson, and 1 others. 2023. Using large language models in psychology. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2(11):688--701

    2023

  7. [15]

    Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Niklas Muennighoff, Dan Jurafsky, and Douwe Kiela. 2024. Kto: Model alignment as prospect theoretic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01306

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Emilio Ferrara. 2023. Should chatgpt be biased? challenges and risks of bias in large language models. Challenges and Risks of Bias in Large Language Models (October 26, 2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Deep Ganguli, Liane Lovitt, Jackson Kernion, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Ben Mann, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Kamal Ndousse, and 1 others. 2022. Red teaming language models to reduce harms: Methods, scaling behaviors, and lessons learned. arXiv e-prints, p...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A Smith. 2020. Realtoxicityprompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.11462

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dongyoung Go, Tomasz Korbak, Germ \'a n Kruszewski, Jos Rozen, Nahyeon Ryu, and Marc Dymetman. 2023. Aligning language models with preferences through f-divergence minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08215

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, and 1 others. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Orpo: Monolithic preference optimization without reference model, 2024

    Jiwoo Hong, Noah Lee, and James Thorne. Orpo: Monolithic preference optimization without reference model, 2024. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2403.07691, 2403

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Jiaming Ji, Donghai Hong, Borong Zhang, Boyuan Chen, Josef Dai, Boren Zheng, Tianyi Qiu, Boxun Li, and Yaodong Yang. 2024. Pku-saferlhf: Towards multi-level safety alignment for llms with human preference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15513

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Prasenjit Karmakar and Shalabh Bhatnagar. 2018. Two time-scale stochastic approximation with controlled markov noise and off-policy temporal-difference learning. Mathematics of Operations Research, 43(1):130--151

    2018

  16. [24]

    u chemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan G \

    Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Se ler, Stefan K \"u chemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan G \"u nnemann, Eyke H \"u llermeier, and 1 others. 2023. Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language models for edu...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Maxim Khanov, Jirayu Burapacheep, and Yixuan Li. 2024. Args: Alignment as reward-guided search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01694

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199--22213

    2022

  19. [27]

    Wouter Kool, Herke van Hoof, and Max Welling. 2019. Buy 4 reinforce samples, get a baseline for free!

    2019

  20. [28]

    Tomasz Korbak, Hady Elsahar, Germ \'a n Kruszewski, and Marc Dymetman. 2022. On reinforcement learning and distribution matching for fine-tuning language models with no catastrophic forgetting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:16203--16220

    2022

  21. [29]

    Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ili \'c , Daniel Hesslow, Roman Castagn \'e , Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, Fran c ois Yvon, Matthias Gall \'e , and 1 others. 2023. Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model

    2023

  22. [30]

    Jiahui Li, Hanlin Zhang, Fengda Zhang, Tai-Wei Chang, Kun Kuang, Long Chen, and Jun Zhou. 2024. Optimizing language models with fair and stable reward composition in reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processi...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Ziniu Li, Tian Xu, Yushun Zhang, Zhihang Lin, Yang Yu, Ruoyu Sun, and Zhi-Quan Luo. 2023. Remax: A simple, effective, and efficient reinforcement learning method for aligning large language models. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    2023

  24. [32]

    Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74--81

    2004

  25. [33]

    Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2021. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07958

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Tianqi Liu, Yao Zhao, Rishabh Joshi, Misha Khalman, Mohammad Saleh, Peter J Liu, and Jialu Liu. 2023. Statistical rejection sampling improves preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06657

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Xiao Liu, Xixuan Song, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. 2024. Extensive self-contrast enables feedback-free language model alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00604

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Yu Meng, Mengzhou Xia, and Danqi Chen. 2024. Simpo: Simple preference optimization with a reference-free reward. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14734

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Michael Moor, Oishi Banerjee, Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Harlan M Krumholz, Jure Leskovec, Eric J Topol, and Pranav Rajpurkar. 2023. Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence. Nature, 616(7956):259--265

    2023

  30. [38]

    Andrew Y Ng, Daishi Harada, and Stuart Russell. 1999. Policy invariance under reward transformations: Theory and application to reward shaping. In Icml, volume 99, pages 278--287

    1999

  31. [39]

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, and 1 others. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing sys...

    2022

  32. [40]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311--318

    2002

  33. [41]

    Ryan Park, Rafael Rafailov, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. 2024. Disentangling length from quality in direct preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19159

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Xue Bin Peng, Aviral Kumar, Grace Zhang, and Sergey Levine. 2019. Advantage-weighted regression: Simple and scalable off-policy reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.00177

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Jan Peters and Stefan Schaal. 2007. Reinforcement learning by reward-weighted regression for operational space control. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning, pages 745--750

    2007

  36. [44]

    Martin L Puterman. 2014. Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming. John Wiley & Sons

    2014

  37. [45]

    Rafael Rafailov, Joey Hejna, Ryan Park, and Chelsea Finn. 2024 a . From r to q^ * : Your language model is secretly a q-function. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12358

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. 2024 b . Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  39. [47]

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, and 1 others. 2024. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul F Christiano. 2020. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:3008--3021

    2020

  42. [50]

    Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model

    2023

  43. [51]

    Qwen Team. 2024. Qwen2.5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth \'e e Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi \`e re, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, and 1 others. 2023 a . Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, and 1 others. 2023 b . Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Michael V \"o lske, Martin Potthast, Shahbaz Syed, and Benno Stein. 2017. Tl; dr: Mining reddit to learn automatic summarization. In Proceedings of the Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization, pages 59--63

    2017

  47. [55]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, and 1 others. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824--24837

    2022

  48. [56]

    Eric Wiewiora. 2011. Potential-based shaping and q-value initialization are equivalent. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 19(1):205--208

    2011

  49. [57]

    Ronald J Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Machine learning, 8:229--256

    1992

  50. [58]

    Zeqiu Wu, Yushi Hu, Weijia Shi, Nouha Dziri, Alane Suhr, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Noah A Smith, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2024. Fine-grained human feedback gives better rewards for language model training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  51. [59]

    Han Xia, Songyang Gao, Qiming Ge, Zhiheng Xi, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2024. Inverse-q*: Token level reinforcement learning for aligning large language models without preference data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14874

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Xi Yang, Aokun Chen, Nima PourNejatian, Hoo Chang Shin, Kaleb E Smith, Christopher Parisien, Colin Compas, Cheryl Martin, Anthony B Costa, Mona G Flores, and 1 others. 2022. A large language model for electronic health records. NPJ digital medicine, 5(1):194

    2022

  53. [61]

    Binwei Yao, Ming Jiang, Diyi Yang, and Junjie Hu. 2023. Empowering llm-based machine translation with cultural awareness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14328

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Yue Yu, Yuchen Zhuang, Jieyu Zhang, Yu Meng, Alexander J Ratner, Ranjay Krishna, Jiaming Shen, and Chao Zhang. 2024. Large language model as attributed training data generator: A tale of diversity and bias. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  55. [63]

    Eric Zelikman, Wanjing Ma, Jasmine Tran, Diyi Yang, Jason Yeatman, and Nick Haber. 2023. Generating and evaluating tests for k-12 students with language model simulations: A case study on sentence reading efficiency. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods i...

    2023

  56. [64]

    Yao Zhao, Rishabh Joshi, Tianqi Liu, Misha Khalman, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter J Liu. 2023. Slic-hf: Sequence likelihood calibration with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10425

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Han Zhong, Guhao Feng, Wei Xiong, Li Zhao, Di He, Jiang Bian, and Liwei Wang. 2024. Dpo meets ppo: Reinforced token optimization for rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18922

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Banghua Zhu, Evan Frick, Tianhao Wu, Hanlin Zhu, and Jiantao Jiao. 2023. Starling-7b: Improving llm helpfulness & harmlessness with rlaif

    2023

  59. [67]

    Daniel M Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Jeffrey Wu, Tom B Brown, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, Paul Christiano, and Geoffrey Irving. 2019. Fine-tuning language models from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08593

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  61. [69]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.