Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Hybrid Preference Optimization for Alignment: Provably Faster Convergence Rates by Combining Offline Preferences with Online Exploration

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Mixing a fixed offline preference dataset with online exploration makes RLHF provably more sample-efficient than either pure offline or pure online training.

desk verdict Solid upper-bound extension of XPO to hybrid RLHF, but the lower-bound reduction is sketched rather than proven, so the headline 'beats both lower bounds' claim is currently unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10616 v1 pith:FJXTDZI5 submitted 2024-12-13 cs.LG

Avinandan Bose , Zhihan Xiong , Aadirupa Saha , Simon Shaolei Du , Maryam Fazel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords hybridpreferenceoptimizationRLHFonlineexplorationofflinedatasamplecomplexitylinearMDPsequentialextrapolationcoefficientdirect
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

This paper tries to establish that the most sample-efficient way to align a policy from human preferences is to use both kinds of data: keep the cheap offline preference pairs and add a small number of freshly queried online comparisons. It introduces HPO, a DPO-style algorithm that, at each of $T$ online rounds, mixes $\gamma$ labeled pairs drawn uniformly from the offline dataset into the online preference buffer and then solves an optimistic version of the DPO objective. The paper proves that the suboptimality gap of the returned policy is controlled by a hybrid exploration coefficient that only counts what the offline data has not already covered. In linear MDPs this gives a gap of $\widetilde{O}(R_{\max} e^{2 R_{\max}} \sqrt{d\, d_{\mathrm{hyb}}/T})$, which recovers the pure online rate when the offline data covers nothing and is strictly better whenever it covers any feature direction. The stated lower bounds for pure offline and pure online RLHF are what make the improvement a provable separation rather than an empirical observation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hybrid sequential extrapolation coefficient $\operatorname{SEC}_{\mathrm{HybRLHF}}$ (Definition 4.2), a preference-feedback analogue of the sequential extrapolation coefficient. It measures, over $T$ rounds, how far the current policy's implicit preference signal $g^{(\pi)}(\tau, \tilde\tau)$ can depart from the KL-regularized objective relative to a variance term built from the online sampling distribution and the offline dataset's empirical coverage $C^{(\pi)}_{\mathrm{off}}$. The second mechanism is the parameter $\gamma$: at each step HPO draws $\gamma$ labeled pairs uniformly from $D_{\mathrm{off}}$ into the hybrid set, and the proof uses $\gamma$ to convert the offline data into extra denominator mass in the concentration bound, equivalently a larger effective sample size $t-1+\gamma$ at round $t$. In linear MDPs, applying the elliptical potential lemma to the covariance $\Lambda_{\mathrm{off}} + (V_{\max}^2/\gamma)I$ turns $\operatorname{SEC}_{\mathrm{HybRLHF}}$ into $O(d_{\mathrm{hyb}} \log(1 + 4T/V_{\max}^2))$, where $d_{\mathrm{hyb}}$ counts the feature directions not yet covered by the offline data. This is what carries the claim that hybrid training only needs to explore the residual feature directions.

What would settle it

Run HPO on a linear MDP with known $d_{\mathrm{hyb}}$ and record the gap; if it decays more slowly than $\sqrt{d\,d_{\mathrm{hyb}}/T}$ up to log factors, Theorem 4 is false. Separately, for a two-step token-level MDP with $\beta>0$, compute the log preference odds between two trajectories under the Bradley-Terry model: if it is not an affine function of a fixed trajectory feature, the lower-bound reduction in Appendix B does not hold and the claimed separation from pure methods collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that the difficulty of preference-based alignment is set not by the whole policy class but by the part of the policy class not already covered by the offline dataset. HPO makes this concrete: at each online round it adds $\gamma$ labeled pairs drawn uniformly from the offline set into the online buffer, then minimizes the optimistic DPO objective of equation (5). The proof shows that the suboptimality gap of the returned policy satisfies $$J_\$\beta$(\pi^*_\$\beta$)-J_\$\beta$(\hat\pi) \lesssim (V_{\max}+R_{\max})$e^{{2R_{\max}}$}\sqrt{\frac{(1+\gamma/T)\operatorname{SEC}_{\mathrm{HybRLHF}}\log(|\Pi|T/\delta)\log T}{T}},$$ with $\operatorname{SEC}_{\mathrm{HybRLHF}}$ the hybrid sequential extrapolation coefficient of Definition 4.2. Because the offline term $\gamma\, C^{(\pi)}_{\mathrm{off}}$ appears inside the variance term of the coefficient, $\operatorname{SEC}_{\mathrm{HybRLHF}} < \operatorname{SEC}_{\mathrm{RLHF}}$ for any nonempty offline dataset, and in linear MDPs the coefficient reduces to $\widetilde{O}(d_{\mathrm{hyb}})$, the number of feature directions whose offline empirical covariance is below $O(1/T)$. The resulting rate $\widetilde{O}(R_{\max} e^{2R_{\max}}\sqrt{d\,d_{\mathrm{hyb}}/T})$ is claimed to beat the pure offline lower bound $\Omega(\sqrt{d^2/N_{\mathrm{off}}})$ and the pure online lower bound $\Omega(\sqrt{d^2/T})$ whenever $d_{\mathrm{hyb}}<d$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premises are policy realizability and bounded log-density ratios, plus the Appendix B reduction that treats RLHF as a dueling bandit in which each trajectory has a hidden linear score equal to the unregularized expected reward and the KL penalty is ignored; the reduction is the fragile premise, since invalidating it removes the comparison with the pure offline and online lower bounds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Setting $\gamma=0$ recovers the pure online XPO bound, so HPO is a strict generalization and any useful offline coverage lowers the number of online queries required.
  • In linear MDPs the gap is never worse than the pure online rate and is strictly better whenever the offline dataset covers at least one feature direction; this holds without requiring the offline data to be collected by a near-optimal policy.
  • With $\gamma=O(T)$ the additional per-round cost is only a uniform draw of $\gamma$ labeled pairs from a fixed dataset, so the theoretical gain carries no extra preference-query cost.
  • The analysis removes the need for concentrability conditions over the optimal policy: only the empirical covariance coverage measured by $d_{\mathrm{hyb}}$ matters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical consequence the authors do not spell out is that the offline dataset's spectral coverage can be measured before training, so $d_{\mathrm{hyb}}$ gives a principled stopping time for online exploration: stop once the residual poorly covered directions are below the desired accuracy.
  • Because the lower-bound proofs ignore the KL penalty, a finite-$\beta$ minimax analysis in which the optimal policy itself shifts with $\beta$ is a natural next step; the claimed separation from pure methods may be $\beta$-dependent.
  • The same construction of adding an offline minibatch to the online buffer is not specific to DPO-style objectives and should transfer to reward-model RLHF and contextual dueling bandits, with $d_{\mathrm{hyb}}$ replaced by the analogous coverage dimension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Hybrid Preference Optimization (HPO), an RLHF algorithm that trains a DPO-style policy on the union of an online preference buffer and minibatches drawn from a static offline preference dataset, together with an optimism regularizer. The main theoretical result is Theorem 1, which bounds the KL-regularized suboptimality gap in terms of a newly defined hybrid sequential extrapolation coefficient SEC_Hyb. Theorem 4 specializes this to linear MDPs as O~(Rmax e^{2Rmax} sqrt(d d_hyb / T)), and Theorems 2 and 3 claim lower bounds for pure offline and pure online RLHF. The paper concludes that HPO is provably more sample-efficient than either pure regime. Section 6 reports experiments on a linear contextual bandit comparing HPO with online and offline baselines.

Significance. If the main results were correct, this would be a notable advance: it would give the first analysis showing that hybrid preference data can strictly reduce the sample complexity of online RLHF without concentrability assumptions, and it would identify a linear-MDP regime in which the hybrid rate is better than the pure offline and pure online minimax rates. The paper does contain genuine technical pieces: the concentration argument is patterned on Xie et al. (2024), and the determinant calculation in the proof of Theorem 4 is a meaningful step. However, the advertised conclusions are not supported as written. The definition of SEC_Hyb in Section 4.3 does not match the quantity used in the regret decomposition in Appendix A.2, so the key inequality in the proof of Theorem 1 has the wrong direction under the stated definitions. The quantity d_hyb in Section 5.2 is not defined as a count, although the proof of Theorem 4 treats it as one. Finally, the lower-bound reduction in Appendix B is asserted rather than constructed and is explicitly carried out for beta=0, while Theorems 2 and 3 are stated for the KL-regularized objective J_beta.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3 / Appendix A.2] The inequality sum_t I(t) <= SEC_Hyb used in the proof of Theorem 1 has the wrong direction under the definitions as written. In Definition 4.2 the t-th denominator is Vmax^2 ∨ ((t-1) E_{mu(t)}[(eg_off)^2]) = Vmax^2 ∨ (Σ_{i<t} E_{pi(i),tilde_pi(i)} g^2 + γ(t-1) C_off). In Appendix A.2 the quantity I(t) has denominator Vmax^2 ∨ ((t-1+γ) E_{mu_hyb(t)} g^2) = Vmax^2 ∨ (Σ_{i<t} E_{pi(i),tilde_pi(i)} g^2 + γ C_off). Since γ(t-1) C_off ≥ γ C_off for t>1, each SEC term is no larger than the corresponding I(t), so the claimed bound Σ_t I(t) ≤ SEC_Hyb does not follow; if anything the reverse inequality holds. Because this step converts the concentration inequality into the SEC-dependent rate, Theorem 1 is not established as written.
  2. [Section 5.2] The definition of d_hyb is malformed and the proof uses a different object. The displayed definition d_hyb = max_i { ||tilde_Lambda_off^{-1/2} v_i||^2 ≲ Ω(1/√T) } is a maximum over boolean conditions, not a count; it can only take values 0 or 1, and the predicate mixes asymptotic notation in a non-well-formed way. In the proof of Theorem 4, d_hyb is instead described as 'the number of indices in [d] such that λ_off^{(i)} ≤ Ω(1/T)'. The correct definition should be d_hyb = |{ i : λ_off^{(i)} ≤ C/T }| for an explicit constant C, or an equivalent sum of indicators. Since the claimed rate O~(sqrt(d d_hyb / T)) and the subsequent comparison with the pure offline and online lower bounds depend on d_hyb scaling as the number of poorly covered directions, this must be fixed.
  3. [Appendix B / Theorems 2 and 3] The reduction from RLHF to linear dueling bandits is asserted, not constructed. Appendix B states that 'the reward/score function s(·) essentially corresponds to the J(·) function of eq. (2) (for beta=0)' and then cites existing linear-bandit lower bounds, but it never constructs the MDP instances, transition laws, trajectory feature maps, policy classes, or hard BTL preference distributions needed to instantiate the cited lower bounds in the RLHF setting. The proof explicitly works with beta=0, whereas Theorems 2 and 3 are stated for the KL-regularized objective J_beta; a hard instance for the unregularized reward does not imply a lower bound on J_beta suboptimality because the KL penalty changes the objective and can shrink the gap. Moreover, the cited lower bounds concern decision sets in R^d, and no argument shows that the trajectories or policies queried by an RLHF learner can realize those action sets. Without this construction, the claim in Section 5.2 that HPO beats the pure offline and pure online lower bounds is unsupported.
  4. [Abstract / Section 1.1] The abstract and contribution list claim 'matching lower bounds' and a 'provably optimal theoretical bound' for hybrid RLHF. Theorems 2 and 3, however, are lower bounds for pure offline and pure online RLHF, not for the hybrid problem; no hybrid lower bound is provided. Even if Theorems 2 and 3 were correct, they would show that HPO improves over the pure regimes, not that its rate is optimal among hybrid algorithms. The wording should be adjusted to state precisely what is and is not proved.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] Assumption 2 uses Vmax before Vmax is defined; the definition of Vmax should appear before the assumption and be restated with its units.
  2. [Theorem 1] The statement says 'for any beta > 0 and T ∈ [N]' without defining N earlier in the paper; clarify whether N denotes the offline dataset size or some other budget.
  3. [Section 5.2] The expression '≲ Ω(1/√T)' is not a well-formed threshold predicate. Replace it with an explicit eigen-threshold condition of the form λ_off^{(i)} ≤ C/T with an absolute constant C.
  4. [Definition 4.2, Remark] The remark that SEC_Hyb < SEC_RLHF is immediate from C_off ≥ 0 and is therefore definitional. The substantive claim is that the concentration argument in Lemma 1 actually pays for the extra offline denominator term; the paper should say so explicitly to avoid giving the impression that the improvement is only a definitional artifact.
  5. [Section 6] The text says 'whereas the hybrid algorithm has seen Noff offline samples and T - Noff offline samples'; the second occurrence should presumably read 'online samples'. Also, 'VPO' is never defined, and no error bars or number of seeds are reported for the experimental curves.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No substantive circularity; the main theorem is proved from concentration arguments, but the stated hybrid-vs-online SEC comparison is partly true by construction of Definition 4.2.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.3, Definition 4.2 and Remark; used in Section 4.4 after Theorem 1]
    "Note that because of the additional quantity C^{(π)}_{off} ≥ 0, for all γ ∈ N and any non-empty D_{off}, we have SEC_{HybRLHF}(Π, T, β, π_{samp}; γ, D_{off}) < SEC_{RLHF}(Π, T, β, π_{samp}). ... Here, we can notice that the sample complexity is reduced because the SEC for hybrid RLHF becomes smaller than its pure online counterpart."

    The advertised hybrid improvement is read off from the strict inequality SEC_hyb < SEC_RLHF, but that inequality is guaranteed by Definition 4.2: the hybrid SEC denominator inserts the nonnegative term γ·C^{(π)}_{off} into the online SEC denominator, so the comparison holds before any estimation or concentration argument. Thus the sentence 'the sample complexity is reduced because the SEC ... becomes smaller' is partly a definitional consequence rather than an empirical or derived fact. The substantive content is supplied separately by Theorem 4, which genuinely bounds SEC_hyb via the elliptical-potential/determinant argument, so this is a mild definitional presentation advantage rather than a full circular derivation of the main bound.

full rationale

Theorem 1 is not circular: its proof uses the concentration Lemmas 1–3, which are established from martingale and Azuma–Hoeffding arguments and do not assume the target regret bound. The linear-MDP specialization in Theorem 4 gives a real determinant-based upper bound on the hybrid SEC, so the claimed speedup is not merely a relabeling of the offline data. The lower-bound theorems rely on external bandit lower bounds (Li et al. 2022; Wagenmaker et al. 2022) and on a published reduction in Saha (2021); the fact that one author overlaps with the present paper does not by itself make the citation circular, since the cited lemma has an independent published proof. The one definitional wrinkle is the SEC_hyb < SEC_RLHF remark, which is true by construction because Definition 4.2 adds γ·C_off to the denominator; the statement that hybrid sample complexity is reduced by the smaller SEC therefore inherits some of its force from the definition rather than from a derived bound. Separately, Appendix B identifies the RLHF score with J(·) 'for β=0' while Theorems 2–3 are stated for the KL-regularized objective J_β, and the reduction to linear dueling bandits is asserted rather than fully constructed. That is an unsupported-reduction/correctness concern, not a circular derivation from the paper's own fitted parameters or conclusions. Overall, the central upper-bound derivation is self-contained, with only a minor definitional advantage in the hybrid-vs-online comparison, so the circularity burden is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theoretical bound rests on standard RLHF assumptions (realizability, bounded density ratios, Bradley-Terry feedback) and on a new coverage quantity SEC_Hyb defined in Definition 4.2. The lower bounds additionally depend on external linear bandit lower bounds and on an unproven embedding of RLHF into dueling bandits. No physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (optimism strength) = c * beta / ((Vmax+Rmax) e^{2 Rmax}) * sqrt(log(|Pi| T / delta) log(T) / ((T+gamma) SEC_Hyb))
    The theorem picks alpha based on unknown problem-dependent quantities such as SEC, Vmax, and Rmax. It is a theoretical tuning parameter, not estimated by a practical procedure.
  • gamma (offline minibatch size) = O(T), e.g., gamma = Noff = 500 in experiments
    The sample complexity depends on gamma; in the linear MDP upper bound gamma is set to O(T) to control the determinant ratio and the effective dimension. The experiments set gamma = Noff = 500.
  • alpha (experiment, online and HPO) = best of {1.0, 10.0}
    In Section 6, the authors try alpha in {1.0, 10.0} and report the best-performing one, which is a hyperparameter fitted to the evaluation metric.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: Policy realizability, pi*_beta in Pi.
    Required for the regression and concentration argument; standard but nontrivial for neural policy classes.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: Bounded density ratios, |log(pi(tau)/pi_ref(tau))| <= Vmax/beta for all pi in Pi and trajectories tau.
    Used in the concentration lemmas and the regret decomposition in Section 4.2 and Appendix A. It is inherited from Xie et al. 2024 and may fail for expressive policies.
  • domain assumption Bradley-Terry preference oracle, Eq. (1).
    The entire preference model and the DPO objective assume Bradley-Terry rewards; if preferences deviate, the bounds do not apply.
  • domain assumption Offline dataset pairs are i.i.d. from a fixed distribution P_off.
    Lemma 2's martingale concentration treats each offline pair in the minibatch as a fresh independent draw; if the dataset is reused or curated adversarially, the bound may fail.
  • standard math Known lower bounds for linear bandit BAI from Wagenmaker et al. 2022 and Li et al. 2022.
    Theorems 2 and 3 are derived by reduction to these external results; the paper does not prove them.
  • ad hoc to paper Embedding assumption: RLHF policy optimization instances can be reduced to linear dueling bandit best-arm identification with trajectory-level score s(a) = J(pi).
    Appendix B asserts this connection without constructing the MDP instances or verifying the KL-regularized objective with beta > 0. This is the weakest spot for the lower bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid Preference Optimization for Alignment: Provably Faster Convergence Rates by Combining Offline Preferences with Online Exploration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJXTDZI5

@misc{pith2026241210616,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid Preference Optimization for Alignment: Provably Faster Convergence Rates by Combining Offline Preferences with Online Exploration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJXTDZI5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10616}
}
read the original abstract

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is currently the leading approach for aligning large language models with human preferences. Typically, these models rely on extensive offline preference datasets for training. However, offline algorithms impose strict concentrability requirements, which are often difficult to satisfy. On the other hand, while online algorithms can avoid the concentrability issue, pure online exploration could be expensive due to the active preference query cost and real-time implementation overhead. In this paper, we propose a novel approach: Hybrid Preference Optimization (HPO) which combines online exploration with existing offline preferences by relaxing the stringent concentrability conditions for offline exploration, as well as significantly improving the sample efficiency for its online counterpart. We give the first provably optimal theoretical bound for Hybrid RLHF with preference feedback, providing sample complexity bounds for policy optimization with matching lower bounds. Our results yield improved sample efficiency of hybrid RLHF over pure offline and online exploration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10616 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left) We plot the cumulative regret as the number of online samples grows. (Right) We plot the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulating linDB feedback with linB feedback 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Apply Azuma Hoeffding with its sample average overt + γ terms

    · E s1∼ρ,τ ∼˜π(t−1) [log(π (t) (τ )) − log(π⋆ β(τ ))] ≤ bB(t)(π) − bB(t)(π⋆ β) + α β Vmax p 24 log(2|Π|δ−1) Proof. Apply Azuma Hoeffding with its sample average overt + γ terms. Combining Lemma 2 and Lemma 3, taking an union bound over all time stepst ∈ [T ], and utilizing the definition of π(t) in Eq.(10) to note bB(t)(π) + bL(t)(π) ≤ bB(t)(π⋆ β) + bL(t)...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    For completeness, we first describe the preference model below: BTL-based Pairwise Preference (Dueling) Model:Consider a decision spaceD

    Our proofs rely on a key observation that the RLHF problem, as described in section 3 can essentially be seen as a BTL-based dueling bandit (DB) 18 setting (Bengs et al., 2022; Negahban et al., 2012), both for the online and offline problem. For completeness, we first describe the preference model below: BTL-based Pairwise Preference (Dueling) Model:Consi...

    work page 2022

  3. [4]

    Dataset reset policy optimization for rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08495,

    Jonathan D Chang, Wenhao Shan, Owen Oertell, Kianté Brantley, Dipendra Misra, Jason D Lee, and Wen Sun. Dataset reset policy optimization for rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08495,

    arXiv

  4. [6]

    KTO: Model alignment as prospect theoretic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01306,

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

    arXiv

  5. [7]

    Foundations of reinforcement learning and interactive decision making

    Dylan J Foster and Alexander Rakhlin. Foundations of reinforcement learning and interactive decision making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16730,

    arXiv

  6. [9]

    Direct language model alignment from online AI feedback

    Shangmin Guo, Biao Zhang, Tianlin Liu, Tianqi Liu, Misha Khalman, Felipe Llinares, Alexandre Rame, Thomas Mesnard, Yao Zhao, Bilal Piot, et al. Direct language model alignment from online AI feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04792,

    arXiv

  7. [11]

    Simpo: Simple preference optimization with a reference-free reward

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

    arXiv

  8. [12]

    Nash learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00886,

    Rémi Munos, Michal Valko, Daniele Calandriello, Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Mark Rowland, Zhao- han Daniel Guo, Yunhao Tang, Matthieu Geist, Thomas Mesnard, Andrea Michi, et al. Nash learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00886,

    arXiv

Show all 31 references
  1. [14]

    Fromr to Q⋆: Your language model is secretly a Q-function

    13 Rafael Rafailov, Joey Hejna, Ryan Park, and Chelsea Finn. Fromr to Q⋆: Your language model is secretly a Q-function. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12358,

    arXiv

  2. [15]

    Direct Nash Optimization: Teaching language models to self-improve with general preferences.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03715,

    Corby Rosset, Ching-An Cheng, Arindam Mitra, Michael Santacroce, Ahmed Awadallah, and Tengyang Xie. Direct Nash Optimization: Teaching language models to self-improve with general preferences.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03715,

    arXiv

  3. [17]

    Understanding preference fine-tuning through the lens of coverage.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01462,

    Yuda Song, Gokul Swamy, Aarti Singh, J Andrew Bagnell, and Wen Sun. Understanding preference fine-tuning through the lens of coverage.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01462,

    arXiv

  4. [18]

    Hybrid reinforcement learning breaks sample size barriers in linear mdps

    Kevin Tan, Wei Fan, and Yuting Wei. Hybrid reinforcement learning breaks sample size barriers in linear mdps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04526,

    arXiv

  5. [19]

    Is RLHF more difficult than standard RL?arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14111,

    Yuanhao Wang, Qinghua Liu, and Chi Jin. Is RLHF more difficult than standard RL?arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14111,

    arXiv

  6. [20]

    Making RL with preference-based feedback efficient via randomization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14554,

    Runzhe Wu and Wen Sun. Making RL with preference-based feedback efficient via randomization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14554,

    arXiv

  7. [21]

    Exploratory preference optimization: Harnessing implicit q*-approximation for sample-efficient rlhf

    Tengyang Xie, Dylan J Foster, Akshay Krishnamurthy, Corby Rosset, Ahmed Awadallah, and Alexander Rakhlin. Exploratory preference optimization: Harnessing implicit q*-approximation for sample-efficient rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.21046,

    arXiv

  8. [22]

    Some things are more cringe than others: Preference optimization with the pairwise cringe loss.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16682,

    Jing Xu, Andrew Lee, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Jason Weston. Some things are more cringe than others: Preference optimization with the pairwise cringe loss.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16682,

    arXiv

  9. [23]

    A theoretical analysis of Nash learning from human feedback under general KL-regularized preference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07314,

    Chenlu Ye, Wei Xiong, Yuheng Zhang, Nan Jiang, and Tong Zhang. A theoretical analysis of Nash learning from human feedback under general KL-regularized preference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07314,

    arXiv

  10. [24]

    Slic-hf: Sequence likelihood calibration with human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10425,

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

    arXiv

  11. [25]

    GEC: A unified framework for interactive decision making in MDP, POMDP, and beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01962,

    Han Zhong, Wei Xiong, Sirui Zheng, Liwei Wang, Zhaoran Wang, Zhuoran Yang, and Tong Zhang. GEC: A unified framework for interactive decision making in MDP, POMDP, and beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01962,

    arXiv

  12. [26]

    Iterative data smoothing: Mitigating reward overfitting and overoptimization in rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16335,

    Banghua Zhu, Michael I Jordan, and Jiantao Jiao. Iterative data smoothing: Mitigating reward overfitting and overoptimization in rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16335,

    arXiv

  13. [27]

    However due to the hybrid nature of our algorithm, we are able to derive concentration lemmas with a faster convergence rate

    15 A Upper Bound Proofs The proof structure for Theorem 1 is similar to Theorem 3.1 (Xie et al., 2024). However due to the hybrid nature of our algorithm, we are able to derive concentration lemmas with a faster convergence rate. We highlight the main differences in our analys...

    2024

  14. [30]

    We will use the abbreviation linB for this feedback model

    etc. We will use the abbreviation linB for this feedback model. B.1 Simulating linDB feedback with linB Feedback. Based on the reduction idea of (Saha, 2021, Lemma 8), we know that one can always simulate1 unit of linDB pairwise preference feedback from2 units of linB reward/s...

    2021

  15. [31]

    Interested readers are encouraged to go over the proof of Lemma 9 of Saha (2021) to see the proof of lemma 4 above

    distribution, then the binary outcome o = 1(r(a) > r(b)) ∼ P (a ≻ b) follows linDB feedback. Interested readers are encouraged to go over the proof of Lemma 9 of Saha (2021) to see the proof of lemma 4 above. Given the above result, we are now ready to prove the lower bound re...

    2021

  16. [1952]

    Value-incentivized preference optimization: A unified approach to online and offline rlhf

    Shicong Cen, Jincheng Mei, Katayoon Goshvadi, Hanjun Dai, Tong Yang, Sherry Yang, Dale Schuurmans, Yuejie Chi, and Bo Dai. Value-incentivized preference optimization: A unified approach to online and offline rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19320,

    arXiv

  17. [2012]

    Reward model learning vs

    Andi Nika, Debmalya Mandal, Parameswaran Kamalaruban, Georgios Tzannetos, Goran Radanović, and Adish Singla. Reward model learning vs. direct policy optimization: A comparative analysis of learning from human preferences.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01857,

    arXiv

  18. [2017]

    Exploration-driven policy optimization in RLHF: Theoretical insights on efficient data utilization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10342,

    Yihan Du, Anna Winnicki, Gal Dalal, Shie Mannor, and R Srikant. Exploration-driven policy optimization in RLHF: Theoretical insights on efficient data utilization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10342,

    arXiv

  19. [2019]

    Harnessing density ratios for online reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09681,

    Philip Amortila, Dylan J Foster, Nan Jiang, Ayush Sekhari, and Tengyang Xie. Harnessing density ratios for online reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09681,

    arXiv

  20. [2021]

    Hybrid rl: Using both offline and online data can make rl efficient.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06718,

    Yuda Song, Yifei Zhou, Ayush Sekhari, J Andrew Bagnell, Akshay Krishnamurthy, and Wen Sun. Hybrid rl: Using both offline and online data can make rl efficient.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06718,

    arXiv

  21. [2022]

    Statistical rejection sampling improves preference optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06657,

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

    arXiv

  22. [2023]

    REBEL: Reinforcement learning via regressing relative rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16767,

    Zhaolin Gao, Jonathan D Chang, Wenhao Zhan, Owen Oertell, Gokul Swamy, Kianté Brantley, Thorsten Joachims, J Andrew Bagnell, Jason D Lee, and Wen Sun. REBEL: Reinforcement learning via regressing relative rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16767,

    arXiv

  23. [2024]

    Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862,

    Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, et al. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.