Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 32 references

MEMETRON: Metaheuristic Mechanisms for Test-time Response Optimization of Large Language Models

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a memetic search over LLM responses—evolution with an LLM crossover operator plus annealed refinement—finds higher-reward responses than standard decoding or best-of-n reranking, without retraining.

desk verdict Plausible memetic search framework over LLM outputs, but the experiments compare generations to each other with the same reward used for selection, so the headline claim about beating standard decoding and reranking is untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08643 v1 pith:425JCZKU submitted 2025-06-10 cs.CL

Son The Nguyen , Theja Tulabandhula This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords test-timeoptimizationLLMdecodingmetaheuristicsgeneticalgorithmsimulatedannealingmemeticrewardmodelhumanpreferencealignment
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

The paper's aim is to make test-time LLM decoding an explicit optimization problem: instead of generating once and hoping, search the space of complete responses for the one that maximizes a user-supplied reward. It claims that a hybrid metaheuristic—GENETRON evolving a population with the LLM as a semantic crossover operator, ANNETRON refining single responses with simulated-annealing moves, and MEMETRON alternating the two—discovers responses that score substantially higher under a human-preference reward model than standard decoding or reranking. The appeal is that this works on frozen, even proprietary models, needing no gradients and no retraining, only a reward function and two prompt templates. On tinyAlpacaEval with a 3B instruct model, the final generation beats the initial generation by 11.78 logits on average under the PairRM reward, with 93% of questions significant after FDR correction; gains concentrate early. If the claim holds, inference-time compute can substitute for training-time alignment in many settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the response space Y together with the black-box reward r(x,y) that turns decoding into discrete optimization. GENETRON is a genetic algorithm whose crossover is performed by the LLM: a fusion prompt asks the model to analyze, reconcile, and fuse two parent responses, with best-of-n sampling as implicit mutation and elitist replacement from a history buffer. ANNETRON is simulated annealing whose neighborhood is defined by an LLM refinement prompt, with best-of-n steepest-ascent selection and geometric temperature decay deciding whether to accept a worse candidate via the Metropolis criterion. MEMETRON is the hybrid: every GENETRON offspring is passed through ANNETRON local refinement before the next population forms. The design constraint that makes it efficient is that the LLM is only invoked for semantic operations (fusion and refinement), while selection, elitism, acceptance, and termination are classical.

What would settle it

Run MEMETRON with the same 3-generation budget on tinyAlpacaEval and compare against best-of-64 i.i.d. sampling from the same base model, scoring both with PairRM; if the random baseline matches or exceeds the search's best response reward, the directional operators are not contributing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that reward-guided search over full candidate responses—not token-level decoding heuristics—is what unlocks test-time improvement. The paper formalizes decoding as maximizing a black-box reward over the set of producible sequences, then shows that a memetic loop of tournament selection, LLM-mediated fusion crossover, best-of-n mutation, and Metropolis-accepted annealed refinement can climb the reward landscape using the LLM's own contextual abilities. In the preference-alignment experiment, GENETRON runs three generations of population evolution (16 seeds, best-of-3 offspring per parent pair) and ANNETRON adds seven refinement steps per response; the resulting history of 64 responses yields a best response whose PairRM score is, on average, 11.78 logits above generation-one responses, with large effect sizes (Cohen's d = -2.92, Cliff's delta = -0.87). The paper is explicit that its goal is not global optimality but meaningfully better responses than one-shot decoding or shallow reranking under a fixed budget.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the crossover and refinement prompts inducing an LLM that usually returns offspring better than their parents under the chosen reward; if the model merely paraphrases or degrades its inputs, GENETRON and ANNETRON become costly random resampling with no directional gain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Frozen and proprietary models can be steered toward arbitrary objectives at inference time, provided a reward function and lightweight prompt templates exist.
  • Training pipelines (SFT, RLHF, DPO, GRPO) can use the search to generate stronger positive and negative examples, improving learning signals without new human labels.
  • Deployment can save compute by stopping early: the reported gains over generation 3 are small (15% significant), implying most benefit arrives in the first two generations.
  • The framework doubles as a reward-model probe: maximizing a reward will systematically expose cases where high reward exploits reward-model flaws.
  • Because the loop only needs a reward signal and generative sampling, it can be lifted to other modalities such as image or video generation where users already select among candidates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the operators' value would compare MEMETRON's best response against best-of-64 independent sampling from the same base model with the same reward evaluations; the paper reports progression across generations but not this equal-budget random baseline.
  • If the gains transfer across base models, the method becomes a practical alignment layer for API-only LLMs; swapping the generator while keeping the reward signal is a cheap experiment the paper does not run.
  • Searching harder against a learned reward risks amplifying reward-model overoptimization; when the search is used to curate training data, selected outputs should be spot-checked for quality drift rather than trusted solely on reward.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MEMETRON, a test-time decoding framework that casts LLM response generation as discrete black-box optimization. It combines a genetic algorithm (GENETRON) with simulated annealing (ANNETRON), using the LLM itself as crossover and refinement operators and a reward model as the objective. The authors claim that MEMETRON significantly outperforms standard decoding and reranking methods on human preference alignment, and they report experiments on tinyAlpacaEval using PairRM as both the search reward and the evaluation metric. The paper also discusses potential uses in training pipelines and reward-model auditing.

Significance. If the empirical claims were established, MEMETRON would be a useful addition to test-time compute methods: it is gradient-free, model-agnostic, and modular, and the formal problem formulation is clean. However, the experimental validation is not adequate for the claims: the only quantitative results compare generations within the method using the same reward that drives the search, with no external evaluation or matched-compute baselines. No code or data is released, limiting reproducibility. The central contribution is therefore currently unverified.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 6, Table 2] The abstract and the final paragraph of Section 6 claim that MEMETRON significantly outperforms standard decoding and reranking methods, but Table 2 only reports comparisons among MEMETRON generations (Gen 1 vs 4, Gen 2 vs 4, Gen 3 vs 4). No results are shown for zero-shot decoding, best-of-16 sampling, reranking, or any other baseline, and the compute budget is not matched across methods. The assertion that MEMETRON outperforms zero-shot decoding and best-of-16 sampling is therefore unsupported by any data presented in the paper.
  2. [Section 6, evaluation metric] The evaluation metric PairRM is the same reward function used throughout the search: tournament selection, best-of-3 offspring selection, ANNETRON acceptance, and elitism all use PairRM. Later generations are thus explicitly selected to maximize PairRM, so higher PairRM logit scores for Generation 4 are expected by construction. To support an alignment claim, the final responses must be evaluated with an independent reward model, human preference judgments, or at least a held-out reward function.
  3. [Section 6, Statistical Analysis; Algorithm 3, line 10] The comparison of Generation 4 with earlier generations is confounded by elitism: the final generation is the top-16 subset of the entire history H, so it is a selected subset of the very populations it is compared against. The reported effect sizes are therefore partially tautological, and the statistical tests do not compare independent sampling distributions. This makes it impossible to attribute the observed score increases to the metaheuristic operators rather than to the selection mechanism itself.
  4. [Sections 4.1 and 4.2] The LLM-as-crossover and LLM-as-refinement operators are central to the algorithm, but the paper provides no evidence that they produce responses that improve on their parents beyond what random resampling from a larger candidate pool would achieve. An ablation that replaces these operators with standard prompted resampling, or a comparison against best-of-64 reranking at the same compute budget, is needed to demonstrate that the metaheuristic structure, rather than extra sampling, is responsible for the gains.
  5. [Section 6, Experimental Details] The method introduces several free parameters (population size N=16, three generations, best-of-3 candidates, seven refinement steps, patience 3, temperature decay alpha, and stopping threshold delta) with no sensitivity analysis or justification for these choices. Given that the method is a heuristic composition, some robustness check over these hyperparameters is necessary before the reported gains can be attributed to the method rather than to tuning.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4 title] The section title contains a typo: 'Tesponse' should be 'Response'.
  2. [Table 2 and Figure 2] Cohen's d is reported as negative while the mean difference (Gen 4 – earlier) is positive; please clarify the sign convention so that the effect size direction matches the reported improvement.
  3. [Section 6, Gen 2 results] The text states that Generation 2 shows '73% significant', while Table 2 reports 78% raw and 73% after FDR correction; please specify which significance level is being quoted.
  4. [References] References [9] and [20] are the same LLM-Blender paper; please cite it once and adjust the numbering.
  5. [Section 6, dataset] The 'tinyAlpacaEval' dataset is not described with a citation or link, and the claimed 100-example subset is not made available; please provide a reference or a download link for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The empirical superiority claim is measured with PairRM, the same reward function that performs selection, mutation, elitism, and acceptance, so the reported gains are forced by construction rather than independently validated.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6 (Experimental Details, Statistical Analysis, Results); Section 4.1 (GENETRON best-of-n and elitism)]
    "Winners are selected using the PairRM scoring function. ... For each parent pair, we sample three candidates and select the one with the highest PairRM score (best-of-3). ... At the end of the evolution process, we obtain a history buffer H containing 64 responses ... For each question, we feed all 64 model-generated responses into PairRM reranking function to get a scalar logit score to each response, reflecting its relative quality within the question's response set."

    The 'Generation 4' outcomes are produced by repeatedly maximizing r = PairRM: GENETRON selects candidates with y* = arg max r(x,y') (best-of-3), forms the next population by top-N in r, and ANNETRON accepts the candidate with the highest PairRM score. The paper's statistical evaluation then scores exactly those outputs with PairRM. The reported logit-score gains from Generation 1 to 4 are therefore forced by the optimizer's own selection rule plus the growing candidate pool; they do not independently validate 'human preference alignment' or 'outperforming standard decoding and reranking methods'. No matched-budget reranking baseline or held-out/human evaluator is given.

full rationale

The formal optimization objective in Section 3 is explicitly max_y r(x,y), and Section 6 chooses PairRM as the black-box reward, so using PairRM inside the search is internally consistent with the stated problem. The circularity arises in the evaluative claim: the paper presents PairRM logit scores of PairRM-selected outputs as evidence of improved 'alignment' and as outperformance over 'standard decoding and reranking methods'. Because the final history is selected by PairRM and contains more candidates than the initial set, the measured increase is a selection artifact and is not compared against any baseline. The conclusion that MEMETRON 'significantly outperforms zero-shot decoding and best-of-16 sampling' is not supported by the reported comparisons, which only contrast Generation 4 with earlier MEMETRON generations under the same reward used for optimization. No load-bearing self-citations appear, and the limitation section does acknowledge that meaningful reward models are assumed, but that acknowledgement does not repair the same-metric evaluation. Score 6 reflects that the central empirical claim, as reported, partially reduces to the optimizer's own objective; the framework itself is not mathematically circular and could in principle be validated with an independent evaluator or matched-budget baseline.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies mainly on hand-set hyperparameters and the strong assumption that the LLM-based variation operators and the reward function behave as intended. There are no new physical entities. The key added burden is that the reward model is both the objective and the evaluator.

free parameters (6)
  • Population size N = 16
    Number of candidate responses in each generation; set by hand in Section 6.
  • Number of generations L = 3
    Total evolution generations used in experiments, set in Section 6.
  • Best-of-n samples per crossover/refinement = 3
    Samples drawn from fusion or refinement prompt and best selected; set in Section 6.
  • Annealing steps = 7
    Refinement steps per response in ANNETRON; set in Section 6.
  • Patience for convergence = 3
    Generations without improvement before stopping; set in Section 6.
  • Temperature decay factor alpha = unreported
    Geometric decay schedule for annealing; stated as in (0,1) but value not reported in Section 6.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Users can define or learn task-appropriate reward functions for their objective.
    Section 3.1 assumes a user-supplied reward function exists and is reliable; this is the core input to the method.
  • domain assumption The base LLM is reasonably capable at the task, so that its outputs and revisions are meaningful starting points.
    Stated in Limitations: 'Our approach assumes access to a reasonably capable base language model.'
  • ad hoc to paper LLM-as-crossover and LLM-as-refinement operators produce responses that improve on the parents under the reward function.
    Sections 4.1 and 4.2 define the operators but do not verify their improvement rate independently of the reward model.
  • domain assumption PairRM is a valid proxy for human preference, so optimizing PairRM improves alignment.
    Section 6 uses PairRM both to guide search and to evaluate success; no human evaluation or held-out reward model is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MEMETRON: Metaheuristic Mechanisms for Test-time Response Optimization of Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/425JCZKU

@misc{pith2026250608643,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MEMETRON: Metaheuristic Mechanisms for Test-time Response Optimization of Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/425JCZKU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08643}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for both open-ended and structured tasks, yet their inference-time behavior is still largely dictated by heuristic decoding strategies such as greedy search, sampling, or reranking. These methods provide limited control and do not explicitly optimize for task-specific objectives. We introduce MEMETRON, a task-agnostic framework that formulates LLM decoding as a discrete black-box optimization problem. MEMETRON leverages hybrid metaheuristic algorithms, GENETRON and ANNETRON, to search the response space, guided by reward models and contextual operations performed by the LLM itself. This approach enables efficient discovery of high-reward responses without requiring model retraining or gradient access. The framework is modular and generalizes across diverse tasks, requiring only a reward function and lightweight prompt templates. We evaluate our framework on the critical human preference alignment task and demonstrate that it significantly outperforms standard decoding and reranking methods, highlighting its potential to improve alignment without model retraining.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08643 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MEMETRON, composed of GENETRON and ANNETRON, iteratively optimizes LLM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance comparisons between Generation 4 and earlier generations across 100 questions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    PaulFChristiano,JanLeike,TomBrown,MiljanMartic,ShaneLegg,andDarioAmodei. Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18290, 2023

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D Manning, and Chelsea Finn. Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18290, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing thelimitsofmathematicalreasoninginopenlanguagemodels.arXivpreprintarXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, and Junxiao Song. Deepseekmath: Pushing thelimitsofmathematicalreasoninginopenlanguagemodels.arXivpreprintarXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Self-exploring language models: Active preference elicitation for online alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19332, 2024

    Shenao Zhang, Donghan Yu, Hiteshi Sharma, Han Zhong, Zhihan Liu, Ziyi Yang, Shuohang Wang, Hany Hassan, and Zhaoran Wang. Self-exploring language models: Active preference elicitation for online alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19332, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Rlhf workflow: From reward modeling to online rlhf, 2024

    HanzeDong,WeiXiong,BoPang,HaoxiangWang,HanZhao,YingboZhou,NanJiang,Doyen Sahoo, Caiming Xiong, and Tong Zhang. Rlhf workflow: From reward modeling to online rlhf, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Iterative reasoning preference optimization, 2024

    RichardYuanzhePang,WeizheYuan,KyunghyunCho,HeHe,SainbayarSukhbaatar,andJason Weston. Iterative reasoning preference optimization, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Self-consistencyimproveschainofthoughtreasoninginlanguage models, 2023

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery,andDennyZhou. Self-consistencyimproveschainofthoughtreasoninginlanguage models, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    LLM-Blender: Ensembling Large Language Models with Pairwise Ranking and Generative Fusion, 2023

    Dongfu Jiang, Xiang Ren, and Bill Yuchen Lin. LLM-Blender: Ensembling Large Language Models with Pairwise Ranking and Generative Fusion, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback, 2023

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, Shashank Gupta, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder,KatherineHermann,SeanWelleck,AmirYazdanbakhsh,andPeterClark. Self-refine: Iterative refinem...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Mixture-of-agents enhances large language model capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04692, 2024

    Junlin Wang, Jue Wang, Ben Athiwaratkun, Ce Zhang, and James Zou. Mixture-of-agents enhances large language model capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04692, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08935, 2023

    PeiyiWang,LeiLi,ZhihongShao,RXXu,DamaiDai,YifeiLi,DeliChen,YuWu,andZhifang Sui. Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08935, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Let’s verify step by step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters, 2024

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms, 2017

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Openai o1 system card

    OpenAI. Openai o1 system card. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.16720, 2024. arXiv:2412.16720 [cs.AI]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Introducing openai o3 and o4-mini

    OpenAI. Introducing openai o3 and o4-mini. https://openai.com/index/ introducing-o3-and-o4-mini/, 2024. Accessed: 2025-06-02. 15

    2024

  10. [18]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903, 2022

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models, 2023

    Denny Zhou, Nathanael Schärli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed Chi. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Llm-blender: Ensembling large language models with pairwise ranking and generative fusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02561, 2023

    Dongfu Jiang, Xiang Ren, and Bill Yuchen Lin. Llm-blender: Ensembling large language models with pairwise ranking and generative fusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02561, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    University of Michigan Press, 1975

    John H Holland.Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press, 1975

    1975

  14. [22]

    Scott Kirkpatrick, Jr. C. D. Gelatt, and Mario P. Vecchi. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, 220(4598):671–680, 1983

    1983

  15. [23]

    Onevolution,search,optimization,geneticalgorithmsandmartialarts: Towards memetic algorithms

    PabloMoscato. Onevolution,search,optimization,geneticalgorithmsandmartialarts: Towards memetic algorithms. Technical Report Caltech Concurrent Computation Program, Report 826, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1989

    1989

  16. [24]

    Memetic computation—past, present & future [research frontier].IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 5(2):24–31, 2010

    Yew-Soon Ong, Meng Hiot Lim, and Xianshun Chen. Memetic computation—past, present & future [research frontier].IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 5(2):24–31, 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    Omran, A.P

    M.G.H. Omran, A.P. Engelbrecht, and A. Salman. Differential evolution methods for unsuper- vised image classification. In2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, volume 2, pages 966–973 Vol. 2, 2005

    2005

  18. [26]

    Evolving code with a large language model, 2024

    Erik Hemberg, Stephen Moskal, and Una-May O’Reilly. Evolving code with a large language model, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Evolving deeper llm thinking, 2025

    Kuang-HueiLee,IanFischer,Yueh-HuaWu,DaveMarwood,ShumeetBaluja,DaleSchuurmans, and Xinyun Chen. Evolving deeper llm thinking, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Llmrefine: Pinpointing and refining large language models via fine-grained actionable feedback, 2024

    Wenda Xu, Daniel Deutsch, Mara Finkelstein, Juraj Juraska, Biao Zhang, Zhongtao Liu, William Yang Wang, Lei Li, and Markus Freitag. Llmrefine: Pinpointing and refining large language models via fine-grained actionable feedback, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    What makes a reward model a good teacher? an optimization perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15477, 2025

    Noam Razin, Zixuan Wang, Hubert Strauss, Stanley Wei, Jason D Lee, and Sanjeev Arora. What makes a reward model a good teacher? an optimization perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15477, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization

    Leo Gao, John Schulman, and Jacob Hilton. Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10835–10866. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Countering reward over-optimization in llm with demonstration-guided reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19409, 2024

    Mathieu Rita, Florian Strub, Rahma Chaabouni, Paul Michel, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Olivier Pietquin. Countering reward over-optimization in llm with demonstration-guided reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19409, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Confronting reward model overoptimization with constrained rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04373, 2023

    TedMoskovitz,AadityaKSingh,DJStrouse,TuomasSandholm,RuslanSalakhutdinov,AncaD Dragan, and Stephen McAleer. Confronting reward model overoptimization with constrained rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04373, 2023. 16

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.