Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

SP3O: Reinforcement Learning from Segment Preferences without Reward Modeling

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that policy gradients in a stochastic MDP can be recovered, up to a constant, from pairwise preferences between short trajectory segments, and builds SP3O, a reward-model-free and critic-free algorithm on that identity.

desk verdict SP3O is a genuinely new first-order, reward-model-free PbRL method from segment preferences, but the central theorem is proven only at pi_ref = pi_theta and the simulated oracle is too well-informed; both gaps are fixable. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02951 v1 pith:7TGMMVSJ submitted 2026-08-03 cs.LG cs.AI

Evan Assmus , Qining Zhang , Lei Ying This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords preference-basedreinforcementlearningsegmentpreferencesreward-model-freepolicygradientPPOstochasticMDPfromhumanfeedbackoff-policyimportancesampling
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 introduces SP3O, a preference-based reinforcement learning algorithm that trains a policy directly from pairwise comparisons of short trajectory segments, in general stochastic environments, without ever learning a reward model or a value critic. Its central assertion is that segment-level preferences contain enough information to compute first-order policy updates: a policy gradient in the original MDP equals, up to a constant, the gradient of a value difference in an auxiliary segment MDP whose terminal reward is the Q-function of the reference policy. If correct, this closes a gap: prior reward-model-free methods either assumed deterministic dynamics or used gradient-free optimization, and trajectory-level feedback becomes impractical for long horizons. The paper backs the claim with a theorem, an error bound on segment length, and experiments in robotic control and LLM fine-tuning showing SP3O improves as horizons grow.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the segment MDP $M_1$: a discounted finite-horizon MDP of length $L$ whose per-step reward is the original reward for the first $L-1$ steps and $r'_L(s,a) = Q^{\pi_{\text{ref}}}_M(s,a)$ at the terminal step, with initial distribution the discounted occupancy measure of the reference policy, $d'_0(s) = (1-\gamma^L)\sum_{k\ge 0} \gamma^{kL} \Pr[s_{kL+1}=s \mid \pi_{\text{ref}}]$. Lemmas 2 and 3 establish that under $\pi_{\text{ref}}$ the Q-function and discounted state occupancy match those of the original MDP; Theorem 1 then converts the policy gradient of $J_M$ into a scaled gradient of a value difference $J_{M_1}(\pi_\theta) - J_{M_1}(\pi_1)$. This is what lets segment comparisons, passed through the inverse-logistic estimator $D$ and a clipped importance-weighted PPO-style loss, act as a first-order policy gradient signal in a general stochastic MDP.

What would settle it

Run SP3O in a stochastic MDP with a known true reward, but replace the preference oracle with one that follows the standard partial-return model, where preferences depend only on the reward sum inside the segment and ignore the quality of the final state. If the policy-gradient estimate is biased and learning degrades in an environment where final-state quality matters, such as goal reaching, that would confirm the method's validity depends on the Eq-4 oracle model rather than on segment feedback alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is an identity (Theorem 1): when the reference policy used to collect segments is the current policy, the gradient of the expected return in the original infinite-horizon discounted MDP is a scaled gradient of a value difference in a constructed finite-horizon segment MDP, $\nabla_\theta J_M(\pi_\theta) = \frac{1}{1-\gamma^L} \nabla_\theta (J_{M_1}(\pi_\theta) - J_{M_1}(\pi_1))$ for any policy $\pi_1$. The segment MDP grants rewards $r(s,a)$ at its first $L-1$ steps and ends with a terminal reward equal to $Q^{\pi_{\text{ref}}}_M(s_L,a_L)$, the reference policy's Q-function at the segment's final state-action pair; its initial state distribution is the discounted occupancy of the reference policy. The proof shows that the Q-function and discounted occupancy of the reference policy coincide in the two MDPs (Lemmas 2 and 3), so the policy gradient theorem applies. This identity lets SP3O estimate the gradient from segment preference feedback: preferences are assumed to follow a logistic model on segment return plus the noisy terminal Q-value, the inverse logistic function yields an estimate $D$ of the return difference, and a PPO-style clipped, off-policy importance-weighted loss converts $D$ into a policy update. The same machinery yields a segment-length tradeoff: too short a segment inherits the oracle's bounded terminal-Q noise, too long a segment inflates variance for a fixed feedback budget.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction assumes that when people compare two short segments, they judge them by the rewards collected inside the segment plus how good the final situation is under the current policy, and that this judgment is only mildly noisy; if real preferences work differently, the estimated reward differences and the gradients built from them are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Segment-level preference feedback is sufficient for first-order policy optimization in stochastic MDPs; the preference query budget no longer needs to scale with trajectory length.
  • The gradient estimator is unbiased when the reference policy is the current policy and the oracle follows the paper's Eq-4 preference model, with PPO-style clipping providing stability in off-policy updates.
  • There is a provable tradeoff in segment length: the optimal $L$ balances oracle terminal-Q noise $\gamma^{L-1}\nu$ against variance $\frac{1}{1-\gamma}\sqrt{L\log(2/\delta)/N}$, and experiments show the best $L$ grows with the oracle budget $N$.
  • Because $\pi_1$ in Theorem 1 is arbitrary, the update can compare the current policy against a slightly older policy or any similar reference, which the loss function exploits by using $\pi_{\theta_{t-1}}$ as the comparison policy.
  • Longer horizons help rather than hurt SP3O, since segments extract more preference signal per evaluation; the control and LLM experiments show this advantage growing with the horizon.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension would replace the terminal Q-term with a learned or estimated value bootstrap when the Q-function of the reference policy is unknown; the theory suggests the estimator remains valid to the extent that bootstrap tracks $Q^{\pi_{\text{ref}}}_M(s_L,a_L)$.
  • The segment-MDP identity suggests a bridge to off-policy evaluation: any algorithm that can estimate $J_{M_1}$ differences from segment data inherits a first-order estimate of the original policy gradient, so segment-level reward-model-free critic architectures could be built on the same construction.
  • If real human preferences follow the partial-return model rather than the Eq-4 model, SP3O's $D$ is biased; an informative comparison would measure preference models on human data, for instance whether final-state quality dominates choice in goal-reaching tasks as the paper argues.
  • The horizon-dependent expertise factor used in the control experiments (0.1 for SP3O versus $10/H$ for baselines) is a practical calibration choice; an ablation varying it could separate algorithmic advantage from oracle-calibration effects.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SP3O, a reward-model-free and critic-free policy-gradient method for stochastic MDPs that learns from pairwise preferences over short trajectory segments. The authors introduce a segment MDP whose terminal reward is the Q-function of a reference policy, and prove (Theorem 1) that when the reference policy equals the current policy, the policy gradient of the original MDP objective equals a scaled gradient of the segment-MDP value difference. They also provide a Hoeffding-style error bound (Proposition 1) to motivate a segment-length tradeoff. The algorithm is evaluated against Online DPO, P3O, and ZPG in MuJoCo control tasks and an LLM finetuning task, reporting improved performance especially in long-horizon settings.

Significance. If the theoretical claims held for the algorithm as implemented, this would be a meaningful contribution: it would give the first gradient-based, first-order PbRL method for general stochastic MDPs with segment feedback that avoids both reward models and critics. The segment-MDP construction with a terminal Q-reward is an elegant idea that directly addresses the known limitation of partial-return preference models. The paper is clearly written, provides full proofs in the appendix, and its experiments are extensive (including a large-seed ablation study). The main weakness is a substantial gap between the theorem's assumptions and the implemented algorithm, which is partially acknowledged in the appendix but not resolved or bounded.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 (Algorithm 1), Section 4.1 (Theorem 1), Appendix C.1.2, C.2.1]
  2. [Section 4.2 (Proposition 1) and Eq. (6)]
  3. [Section 5.2 and Appendix C.2.1]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Appendix D.5]
  2. [Lemma 1 (Section 3)]
  3. [Theorem 1 (Section 4.1)]
  4. [Section 3 and Lemma 1]
  5. [Section 5.2]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: Theorem 1 is a genuine policy-gradient identity for an auxiliary segment MDP; implementation mismatches are correctness gaps, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central theoretical claim, Theorem 1, is a real derivation rather than a restatement of an input. The auxiliary segment MDP M1 is deliberately defined so that its terminal reward equals Q^{pi_ref}_M and its initial distribution equals the discounted occupancy of pi_ref, which makes Lemmas 2 and 3 true by construction. But the theorem does not stop there: it applies the policy gradient theorem to M1 and combines those definitional identities to prove the nontrivial scaling relation between gradients, so the conclusion is not merely the definition of M1. The preference signal D in Eq. 5 is a fixed inverse-logistic transform of binary preference labels, not a fitted parameter, and Proposition 1 is a Hoeffding bound on a sample average; no target performance number is used to fit anything. The only same-author citations (Zhang and Ying 2025a,b) appear as descriptions of alternative zeroth-order methods and are not load-bearing in the proofs. The paper does state limitations that create a theory/practice gap: Appendix C.1.2 replaces discounted state sampling with uniform sampling, and Appendix C.2.1 keeps the base model as reference despite sampling from the current policy, so the condition pi_ref = pi_theta of Theorem 1 is violated in parts of the implementation. Those are correctness and robustness concerns, not circularity, because the paper does not hide the deviation and the theoretical statement remains a well-defined mathematical identity under its stated assumptions. Overall, no step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The central claim rests on the preference oracle model, the exact pi_ref = pi_theta identity that the algorithm does not satisfy, the support-inclusion condition for importance sampling, and the discounted-sampling requirement that the implementation drops. These are the main costs of the theoretical guarantee.

free parameters (3)
  • Segment length L = 5, 20, 50 in main experiments; ablated 5-40
    Central hyperparameter of the algorithm. Proposition 1 predicts a tradeoff, but the paper offers no principled way to select L and the ablation shows the optimal value depends on the oracle budget N.
  • Effective horizon constant C0 in H = C0/(1-gamma) = unspecified
    Algorithm 1 defines the sampled trajectory length via C0/(1-gamma), but C0 is never assigned a value or discussed in the experiments; it is a free design constant.
  • Expertise factor in simulated oracle = 0.1 for SP3O, 10/H for baselines, 0.01 for SP3O in Swimmer
    Experimental tuning to equalize preference probabilities across methods and horizons; it affects the comparison and is not derived from theory.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Human preference oracle follows the logistic segment model in Eq 4, with terminal Q estimate of the reference policy and bounded noise.
    Load-bearing: the inverse-logistic estimate D recovers the bootstrapped return difference only if this model holds. Experiments construct the oracle to match it, but real human evaluators may not behave this way.
  • ad hoc to paper The reference policy equals the current policy, pi_ref = pi_theta, for Theorem 1.
    The exact identity in Theorem 1 requires pi_ref = pi_theta, but Algorithm 1 refreshes theta_ref only every T updates. The paper only says the reference is close and provides no bound for the mismatch.
  • domain assumption Support inclusion: the supports of pi_theta_t and pi_theta_{t-1} are contained in the support of pi_ref.
    Stated in Lemma 1 as necessary for unbiased off-policy importance sampling. It is not verified in the continuous-control experiments with Gaussian policies.
  • ad hoc to paper Segments are sampled from the discounted occupancy distribution d_0^1 of pi_ref.
    Algorithm 2 uses weights gamma^{L j} as an approximation, but Appendix C.1.2 says states are sampled uniformly in practice, so the theoretical unbiasedness does not hold for the implemented version.
  • standard math Infinite-horizon discounted MDP with rewards bounded in [0,1] and bounded value functions.
    Standard setting stated in Section 2 and used throughout the proofs.
  • standard math Hoeffding's inequality applies to independent segment samples in Proposition 1.
    Used in the proof of Proposition 1 to derive the finite-sample bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SP3O: Reinforcement Learning from Segment Preferences without Reward Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7TGMMVSJ

@misc{pith2026260802951,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SP3O: Reinforcement Learning from Segment Preferences without Reward Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7TGMMVSJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02951}
}
read the original abstract

Preference-based reinforcement learning (PbRL) for general stochastic MDPs often requires training a reward model. Existing reward-model-free methods are either restricted to bandits or deterministic MDPs, such as DPO or P3O, or use zeroth-order, gradient-free optimization, which in general exhibits a slower convergence rate than gradient-based algorithms. Furthermore, existing reward-model-free preference-based RL algorithms almost exclusively use trajectory-level feedback, which can require significant effort from a human evaluator when trajectories are long. On the other hand, segments are much shorter, so they are easier to compare and evaluate. In this paper, we introduce a novel reward-model-free, critic-free, and gradient-based PbRL algorithm compatible with segment preferences named Segment Pairwise Proximal Policy Optimization (SP3O). SP3O utilizes segment-level preference feedback to construct an accurate policy value difference estimator via off-policy importance sampling, and then uses the estimator to compute the policy gradient via a PPO-type loss function. We provide a theoretical basis for the algorithm and analyze the tradeoff in choosing the segment length. We also evaluate it experimentally against other PbRL/RLHF algorithms in robotic control and LLM finetuning settings to show its improved performance, especially in long-horizon tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02951 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Final Average Reward per Timestep versus Time Horizon in MuJoCo Environments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ablation Study of L and N in HalfCheetah-v5. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LLM Finetuning Results. Continuation Length’s Effect on Performance. We also examine how the number of tokens generated in each online continuation (TPC) affects these algorithms. In this setting, TPC can be thought of as the time horizon. Shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of Continuation Length. segment preferences becomes more efficient than trajectory preferences as we increase the horizon length. 6 Conclusion In this paper, we introduced SP3O, a novel reward-model-free and critic-free PbRL algorithm applicable to general M…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation Study of Clipping versus KL Regularization. Shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation Study of Second Policy in Loss Function. Shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Learning Rate Tuning Results. In SP3O and P3O, we set the reward difference terms to `1 or ´1 depending on which segment/continuation is preferred, and don’t infer any magnitude of the preference. In P3O, we use the P3O-V1 (Clipping Separately) from the original P3O pa…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of Changing Reference Policy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    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

  2. [8]

    Contrastive preference learning: learning from human feedback without rl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13639,

    Joey Hejna, Rafael Rafailov, Harshit Sikchi, Chelsea Finn, Scott Niekum, W Bradley Knox, and Dorsa Sadigh. Contrastive preference learning: learning from human feedback without rl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13639,

    arXiv

  3. [9]

    Open problems and fundamental limitations of reinforcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15217,

    Stephen Casper, Xander Davies, Claudia Shi, Thomas Krendl Gilbert, Jérémy Scheurer, Javier Rando, Rachel Freedman, Tomasz Korbak, David Lindner, Pedro Freire, et al. Open problems and fundamental limitations of reinforcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15217,

    arXiv

  4. [15]

    Realtoxicityprompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.11462,

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

    arXiv 2009

  5. [17]

    Reinforcement Learning with Segment Feedback

    Yihan Du, Anna Winnicki, Gal Dalal, Shie Mannor, and R Srikant. Reinforcement learning with segment feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01876,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [18]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980,

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980,

    arXiv

  7. [20]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101,

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101,

    arXiv

  8. [21]

    Approximating kl divergence, 2020.URL http://joschu

    John Schulman. Approximating kl divergence, 2020.URL http://joschu. net/blog/kl-approx. html, 14,

    work page 2020

Show all 27 references
  1. [22]

    15 A.2 Comparison of Preference Models

    14 Appendix Table of Contents A Related Work 15 A.1 Preference-Based RL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.2 Comparison of Preference Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.3 Use of Traj...

    2011

  2. [23]

    This makes them inapplicable to many modern RL problems

    are based on restrictive assumptions, including discrete state/action spaces, a fully parametric policy, or a known transition kernel. This makes them inapplicable to many modern RL problems. A.2 Comparison of Preference Models. For two segmentsσ1 andσ2 with lengthL, most exis...

    2017

  3. [24]

    Specifically, even if the partial returns of two segments are the same, 15 humans could still prefer one trajectory segment based on the value of the last state and action

    as not accurately representing how real human preferences are generated. Specifically, even if the partial returns of two segments are the same, 15 humans could still prefer one trajectory segment based on the value of the last state and action. For example, in goal-reaching t...

    2022

  4. [26]

    During training, policies were Gaussian with a parameter controlling the log standard deviation for each dimension in the action space

    optimizer was used for all policy networks. During training, policies were Gaussian with a parameter controlling the log standard deviation for each dimension in the action space. However, during the evaluation, all policies were based on their deterministic version without th...

    2022

  5. [27]

    The global gradient norm is clipped to1.0

    optimizer was used for all algorithms withβ1“0.9 ,β2“0.999 , andϵ“10 ´8. The global gradient norm is clipped to1.0. Shown in Figure 7 are the toxicity versus KL curves of each algorithm with different learning rates. For the regularization parameters in these experiments we us...

    2020

  6. [1000]

    We observe that in Ant-v5 usingπθt´1 as the second policy out performs setting the second policy toπθref

    The curves are smoothing with a sliding window of 50 updates. We observe that in Ant-v5 usingπθt´1 as the second policy out performs setting the second policy toπθref . In the other environments, the two variants perform comparably. (a) Ant-v5 (b) HalfCheetah-v5 (c) Swimmer-v5...

    2019

  7. [1952]

    12 Qining Zhang and Lei Ying

    ISSN 00063444, 14643510. 12 Qining Zhang and Lei Ying. Zeroth-order policy gradient for reinforcement learning from human feedback without reward inference. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025a. W Bradley Knox, Stephane Hatgis-Kessell, S...

    arXiv

  8. [2012]

    Step-dpo: Step-wise preference optimization for long-chain reasoning of llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18629,

    Xin Lai, Zhuotao Tian, Yukang Chen, Senqiao Yang, Xiangru Peng, and Jiaya Jia. Step-dpo: Step-wise preference optimization for long-chain reasoning of llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18629,

    arXiv

  9. [2013]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

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

    arXiv

  10. [2014]

    Making reinforcement learning work on swimmer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.07587,

    Maël Franceschetti, Coline Lacoux, Ryan Ohouens, Antonin Raffin, and Olivier Sigaud. Making reinforcement learning work on swimmer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.07587,

    arXiv

  11. [2017]

    Pebble: Feedback-efficient interactive reinforcement learning via relabeling experience and unsupervised pre-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05091,

    Kimin Lee, Laura Smith, and Pieter Abbeel. Pebble: Feedback-efficient interactive reinforcement learning via relabeling experience and unsupervised pre-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05091,

    arXiv

  12. [2018]

    Aligning text-to-image models using human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12192, 2023b

    Kimin Lee, Hao Liu, Moonkyung Ryu, Olivia Watkins, Yuqing Du, Craig Boutilier, Pieter Abbeel, Mohammad Ghavamzadeh, and Shixiang Shane Gu. Aligning text-to-image models using human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12192, 2023b. Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry. Rank a...

    arXiv

  13. [2019]

    Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5602,

    V olodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Alex Graves, Ioannis Antonoglou, Daan Wierstra, and Martin Riedmiller. Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5602,

    arXiv

  14. [2020]

    Preference transformer: Modeling human preferences using transformers for rl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00957,

    Changyeon Kim, Jongjin Park, Jinwoo Shin, Honglak Lee, Pieter Abbeel, and Kimin Lee. Preference transformer: Modeling human preferences using transformers for rl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00957,

    arXiv

  15. [2021]

    Gymnasium: A standard interface for reinforcement learning environments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17032,

    Mark Towers, Ariel Kwiatkowski, Jordan Terry, John U Balis, Gianluca De Cola, Tristan Deleu, Manuel Goulão, Andreas Kallinteris, Markus Krimmel, Arjun KG, et al. Gymnasium: A standard interface for reinforcement learning environments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17032,

    arXiv

  16. [2022]

    Rlaif vs

    Harrison Lee, Samrat Phatale, Hassan Mansoor, Thomas Mesnard, Johan Ferret, Kellie Lu, Colton Bishop, Ethan Hall, Victor Carbune, Abhinav Rastogi, et al. Rlaif vs. rlhf: Scaling reinforcement learning from human feedback with ai feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00267, 2023a....

    arXiv

  17. [2023]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models

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

    arXiv

  18. [2024]

    Provable reinforcement learning from human feedback with an unknown link function

    Qining Zhang and Lei Ying. Provable reinforcement learning from human feedback with an unknown link function. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03066, 2025b. Róbert Busa-Fekete, Balázs Szörényi, Paul Weng, Weiwei Cheng, and Eyke Hüllermeier. Preference-based reinforcement learning: ev...

    arXiv

  19. [2026]

    Shangmin Guo, Biao Zhang, Tianlin Liu, Tianqi Liu, Misha Khalman, Felipe Llinares, Alexandre Rame, Thomas Mesnard, Yao Zhao, Bilal Piot, et al

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=9osvTOYbT4. 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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.