REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 33 references
Optimizing What Policies Learn From: Recoverability-aware Rollout Intervention Learning
T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper claims that rollout generation in LLM post-training should be learned, not allocated uniformly: a controller trained on realized reward-contrast gains decides where and how to branch, beating uniform GRPO and heuristic…
desk verdict RAIL is a genuinely novel and honestly written rollout-allocation method whose empirical gains are credible but not fully attributed to recoverability learning; the theory part is weaker than it looks. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the recoverability controller, a small neural network that maps a pre-intervention state representation (rollout statistics plus projected policy hidden states and task embedding) together with an encoded intervention, a branch budget $m \in \{4,8,12\}$ and a decoding regime $\tau \in \{\text{EXPLOIT}, \text{MILD}, \text{AGGRESSIVE}\}$, to a predicted gain $\hat{\Delta}_\phi(z,b)$. It is trained by recency-weighted Huber regression on traces $(z_t, b_t, y_t)$, where the realized label is the change in distance to the balanced reward regime, $y_t = [d(Y_{\text{before}}) - d(Y_{\text{after}})] - \lambda C(b_t)$ with $d(Y) = |\bar{R}_Y - 0.5|$. The structured intervention space $\mathcal{B} = \mathcal{M} \times \mathcal{T}$ carries the argument's non-scalar claim, and the shadow-to-live deployment with utility gate $\eta$ carries its safety. The theory runs on a bandit decomposition: action-selection regret is controlled by the controller's cumulative tracking error, which is bounded by the statistical exploration term, the policy-drift term $D_T$, and the approximation error $A_T$.
What would settle it
Run RAIL alongside a control that spends the same rollout budget from the same entropy-identified anchors but picks branch budget and decoding regime uniformly at random, keeping the identical GRPO objective and shadow-to-live schedule. If the random control matches RAIL's success rates (or if the controller's act/skip sign agreement, reported near $r \approx 0.31$ on AgentBench-OS, does not track per-step policy improvement), then the measured gains are caused by the reshaped rollout pool, not by learned recoverability.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
On its own terms, the central discovery is that recoverability, defined as the expected improvement in finite-group reward contrast produced by an intervention at a trajectory state, is learnable from outcome feedback, and a controller trained on realized recoverability gains can outperform both uniform GRPO and heuristic rollout-intervention strategies. The paper supports this with consistent gains across AgentBench-OS, AgentBench-DB, WebShop, and ToolQA-Coffee (Table 1), with online controller updates tracking policy-induced non-stationarity better than a frozen controller (Figure 3), with structured intervention distributions that differ by task (Figure 4), and with lower average rollout budgets than high-budget adaptive baselines (Table 3). It also proves a sublinear recoverability regret bound: with a finite intervention space, bounded gains, sufficient exploration, and cumulative drift and approximation error of $o(T)$, the regret satisfies $\mathrm{Reg}_T \le \tilde{O}(\sqrt{TK}) + O(D_T) + O(A_T)$, so the average per-step regret vanishes even though the recoverability function itself is non-stationary.
Load-bearing premise
The argument assumes that training the model with the standard group-relative policy loss on a deliberately reshaped, intervention-biased set of rollouts, sampled with different temperatures and branch points and with no correction for that bias, still improves the policy the way ordinary sampling does, instead of silently distorting what the loss optimizes for.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Rollout allocation becomes a co-evolved optimization object: as the policy updates, the controller keeps learning from fresh traces, so the network that decides where and how to branch tracks the changing utility of interventions instead of freezing at a static heuristic.
- Constrained post-training budgets go further: RAIL reaches higher success rates than GRPO-32 while issuing substantially fewer rollouts per task, so the same compute floor buys stronger final performance.
- Methods that reduce intervention to a scalar budget are provably leaving signal on the table: when the best recoverability gain requires a structured choice such as branch point combined with decoding regime, the scalar space has an irreducible expressiveness gap and can incur linear recoverability regret on persistent-mismatch states.
- Adaptivity has a formal backing: under the paper's drift and learnability conditions the controller's average recoverability regret vanishes with training, whereas fixed heuristic strategies accumulate a linear gap whenever their proxy-to-gain mapping shifts as the policy evolves.
Reading between the lines
- A reader should treat the headline gains as measuring the whole package: because the GRPO update is applied to a deliberately reshaped rollout set without importance correction, as the paper's own Appendix D.1 states, part of the benefit could come from the reshaping itself. A decisive control would hold the reshaped budget, anchor set, and objective fixed while choosing branch budget and temperat
- The recoverability label is engineered for binary verifiable rewards, where the midpoint $p = 0.5$ maximizes $p(1-p)$; dense or multi-objective rewards would require a redefined signal, and the regret bound's drift condition $D_T = o(T)$ could be violated by phase transitions in training dynamics such as reasoning collapse. Logging the per-step recoverability gap during training would show whether
- Because the intervention space is plug-and-play, the same shadow-to-live controller template should transfer to other rollout controls such as prompting style, verifier-guided repair, or rollback actions; the paper mentions these extensions but does not test them.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes RAIL, a training-time framework that selects rollout interventions (branch budgets and decoding regimes) during GRPO-style LLM post-training by learning a recoverability controller from realized reward-contrast gains. Intervention selection is cast as a contextual bandit over a structured action space, with a shadow-to-live deployment and utility-gated branching. The authors report consistent success-rate improvements over uniform GRPO and heuristic intervention baselines on AgentBench-OS, AgentBench-DB, WebShop, and ToolQA-Coffee, along with adaptive-tracking, expressiveness, and efficiency analyses. The paper also states a sublinear recoverability-regret theorem (Theorem 3.1) and a set of appendices containing implementation details, ablations, and discussions of limitations.
Significance. If the empirical claims are upheld, RAIL would be a useful contribution to LLM post-training: it treats rollout generation as a learnable, structured decision problem, provides a concrete shadow-to-live mechanism, and reports consistent gains across four agentic benchmarks with four-seed error bars. The paper is unusually transparent about its limitations: Appendix D.1 explicitly acknowledges that the policy update on intervention-shaped rollouts is biased, and Appendix D.3 acknowledges the entropy-proposal coverage trade-off. The empirical evaluation includes useful ablations (component removal, scalar-vs-structured action space, shadow length, dynamic promotion) and an online-vs-frozen controller comparison. The main weaknesses are theoretical: Theorem 3.1 reduces to the tracking assumption rather than proving it, and the empirical comparison lacks a non-adaptive combined-intervention baseline that would isolate the value of learning from realized recoverability gains. These issues are significant but fixable within the scope of the paper.
major comments (3)
- [§3.1, Theorem 3.1; Appendix C.2, Assumption C.7] The sublinear regret claim is assumed rather than proved. Assumption C.7 postulates exactly that the cumulative tracking error epsilon_T is bounded by O~(sqrt(T K)) + O(D_T) + O(A_T), and Theorem C.8 then derives Reg_T <= 2 epsilon_T + sum rho_t. Substituting the assumed bound into this inequality reproduces the theorem statement verbatim, so the 'sublinear recoverability regret' conclusion is a restatement of the tracking assumption, not a consequence of the controller algorithm. The main text's Theorem 3.1 should be reframed as a conditional reduction: if the actual online regression procedure satisfies a tracking bound of the stated form, then the regret bound follows. Alternatively, the authors should provide a concrete algorithm-specific upper bound on epsilon_T for the recency-weighted Huber regression with coverage-directed exploration, or state that no such bound is provided. As written, the theory does not establish that RAIL achieves sublinear regret; it only shows that sublinear estimation error would imply sublinear regret.
- [§4, Table 1; Table 2; Appendix D.1] The central empirical claim—that learning interventions from realized recoverability gains improves GRPO—lacks the key control: a non-adaptive baseline that combines the same structured intervention space (branch budget and decoding regime) under a fixed rule. ARPO/AEPO vary branching but keep default decoding; TAMPO/VIP vary a scalar at task level; none applies a fixed combined policy over B = M x T. Table 2 ablations remove one learned dimension or change grid granularity, but they always keep the learned controller, so they cannot separate 'the structured intervention space is useful' from 'learning which cell in that space is useful.' Because Appendix D.1 states that the GRPO update on intervention-shaped rollouts is a deliberately biased estimator, a fixed combined-intervention baseline would share the same biased update; if such a baseline matched RAIL, the reported gains would be attributable to the intervention space rather than to recoverability learning. Please add a fixed rule over B (for example, entropy-anchored branching with a fixed budget and fixed decoding regime, or a task-difficulty-based rule) and report its success rate, or provide an ablation that replaces the online controller with a random or fixed mapping over the same B.
- [Appendix D.1, §4.2 RQ1] The uncorrected GRPO update on intervention-shaped rollouts is a correctness risk for the effectiveness claim. The paper admits that the update 'should not be interpreted as an unbiased estimator of the original-policy expectation under arbitrary interventions,' yet the main empirical conclusion is that RAIL 'improves policy optimization' relative to GRPO. Under a biased update, the improvement could reflect optimization of a distorted objective rather than better rollout selection. The theory in Section 3 does not address this, because it analyzes only controller regret over intervention gains, not the effect of biased updates on the policy objective. Please provide either (i) a diagnostic experiment showing that the biased update does not systematically distort the learned policy (e.g., compare final policies on held-out tasks using a corrected or importance-weighted update where feasible), or (ii) a clear statement in Section 4 that all reported gains are for the deliberately biased update and that the results should be interpreted as an engineering improvement rather than evidence that the GRPO objective is better optimized. This limitation should also be moved from the appendix to the main text, since it directly qualifies RQ1.
minor comments (6)
- [§2.2, RQ4 paragraph] The sentence 'Finally, another important benefit of rollout intervention is its potential to improve training efficiency by while avoiding saturated or unrecoverable ones' is grammatically incomplete and should be reworded.
- [Table 2] The labels 'Opt.=2' and 'Opt.=4' are undefined; please specify that they refer to 2x2 and 4x4 action grids and state whether the branch-count normalization changes accordingly.
- [Table 3] Average rollout counts are reported without standard deviations; since rollout counts are stochastic, please provide error bars or state that the counts are deterministic budget caps.
- [Figure 3] The 'Agreement %' metric should be defined in the caption or text: agreement between the sign of the predicted gain and the sign of the realized gain on live-phase anchors, and the number of anchors or steps used for the rolling average should be stated.
- [Appendix B.3.4] The phrase 'Rollout budget is the maximum budget allowed for branching and allocation' is ambiguous about whether the budget is per anchor, per task, or global; please clarify.
- [Abstract and Section 1] There are missing spaces after introduced words, e.g., 'we introduceRecoverability' in the abstract and 'introducerecoverability' in the contribution list; these should be fixed during copyediting.
Circularity Check
The sublinear recoverability-regret theorem reduces to its own tracking assumption: Theorem C.8 concludes the same bound that Assumption C.7 already imposes on the cumulative estimation error, so the theoretical claim is definitional; the empirical evaluation is independent.
-
self definitional
[Appendix C.2, Assumption C.7 and Theorem C.8; main-text Theorem 3.1]
"Assumption C.7 (Online recoverability tracking). The online regression procedure used by the recoverability controller produces estimates bft satisfying the cumulative tracking bound ϵT := Σ_t E_z[max_b |bf_t(z,b)-f_t(z,b)|] ≤ Õ(√(TK)) + O(D_T) + O(A_T). ... Theorem C.8 ... Reg_T ≤ 2ϵ_T + Σ_t ρ_t. In particular, if ϵ_T = Õ(√(TK)) + O(D_T) + O(A_T), Σ_t ρ_t = Õ(√(TK)), then Reg_T ≤ Õ(√(TK)) + O(D_T) + O(A_T)."
The theorem's claimed regret bound is, up to a factor of two and the exploration term, exactly the bound that Assumption C.7 already asserts for the cumulative tracking error ϵ_T. Since Theorem C.8 only proves Reg_T ≤ 2ϵ_T + Σρ_t, substituting the assumed ϵ_T bound into Eq. (30) reproduces Eq. (32), the theorem's conclusion. Thus the sublinear-regret result is not derived from first-principles stability and learnability conditions; it is the oracle tracking assumption restated as a regret guarantee. The paper is transparent that this is an 'oracle-style' reduction, but the theoretical claim is nonetheless definitional rather than an independent derivation.
full rationale
The only load-bearing reduction I can exhibit is in the regret analysis. The rest of the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks: RAIL's controller is trained online from realized intervention traces, and its success-rate, rollout-budget, and adaptivity comparisons are evaluated on held-out tasks or on logged live decisions; no baseline or metric is constructed from RAIL's own output in a way that would force the reported empirical gains. The shadow phase does use an entropy heuristic to propose anchors, but the paper is explicit that entropy only proposes and realized gains determine retention, so this is an acknowledged coverage-efficiency trade-off rather than a circular derivation. The theoretical sublinear-regret claim, however, reduces to Assumption C.7: the bound the theorem concludes is the bound the assumption already asserts for ϵ_T, up to an exploration term and a factor of two. Because the paper explicitly labels this 'oracle-style', the reduction is transparent rather than hidden, but it is nonetheless definitional for the theorem. I therefore score 6: partial circularity in the theoretical claim, with the empirical contribution independent.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (7)
- cost penalty lambda =
0.005
- live utility gate eta =
0.02
- branch budget grid M =
{4, 8, 12}
- decoding regime grid T =
3 regimes, hand-set per benchmark (Appendix B.3.1)
- recency half-life and window W =
exponential half-life; W=60 for dynamic gate
- exploration schedule rho_t =
decayed coverage-directed schedule (values not given)
- selected state features =
Two features added after offline selection (B.3.2)
assumptions (7)
- standard math Bounded recoverability gains and mean-zero bounded noise (Assumption C.3)
- standard math Sufficient exploration (Assumption C.4)
- domain assumption Recoverability learnability A_T = o(T) (Assumption C.5)
- domain assumption Controlled policy-induced drift D_T = o(T) (Assumption C.6)
- ad hoc to paper Online tracking bound epsilon_T <= O-tilde(sqrt(T K)) + O(D_T) + O(A_T) (Assumption C.7)
- ad hoc to paper Uncorrected GRPO update on intervention-shaped rollouts is effective (D.1)
- domain assumption Reward variance (distance to midpoint) is the right recoverability signal (C.1)
invented entities (1)
-
Recoverability gain Delta_theta(z,b)
independent evidence
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing What Policies Learn From: Recoverability-aware Rollout Intervention Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SLGXXKGE
@misc{pith2026260805080,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Optimizing What Policies Learn From: Recoverability-aware Rollout Intervention Learning},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SLGXXKGE}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05080}
}
read the original abstract
Critic-free group-based reinforcement learning has become a scalable approach for post-training large language models. However, most existing methods allocate the same number of rollouts to every task and trajectory state, even though some rollouts provide much more useful learning signals than others. Recent work has started to treat rollout generation as an adaptive decision, but two important limitations remain. First, intervention strategies are often based on fixed heuristics and therefore cannot adjust as the policy changes during training. Second, these methods usually decide only how many rollouts to generate, without explicitly controlling where and how to intervene. To address these limitations, we propose Recoverability-Aware Intervention Learning (RAIL), a training-time framework that learns how to generate rollouts based on the improvement produced by each intervention. RAIL models intervention selection as an online contextual-bandit problem and trains a recoverability controller using intervention traces collected through a shadow-to-live procedure. This allows the controller to keep learning while the underlying policy evolves. We evaluate RAIL in terms of effectiveness, adaptivity, expressiveness, and efficiency. Across multiple settings, RAIL consistently improves performance under limited rollout budgets. These results show that recoverability-aware intervention provides a principled way to generate more informative and less redundant rollouts, leading to stronger learning signals during post-training.
Figures
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[3]
Assumption C.6 is the stability condition connecting the controller analysis to policy optimization
Assumption C.6(Controlled policy-induced drift).The cumulative variation of the recoverability function is bounded by DT = TX t=2 sup z∈Z, b∈B |ft(z, b)−ft−1(z, b)|.(27) We assumeD T =o(T)under stable policy optimization. Assumption C.6 is the stability condition connecting the controller analysis to policy optimization. If policy updates changed recovera...
work page 2014
-
[6]
Jiatan Huang, Zheyuan Zhang, Kaiwen Shi, Yanfang Ye, and Chuxu Zhang. Evolverouter: Co- evolving routing and prompt for multi-agent question answering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05149,
-
[7]
Tree search for llm agent reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.21240,
Yuxiang Ji, Ziyu Ma, Yong Wang, Guanhua Chen, Xiangxiang Chu, and Liaoni Wu. Tree search for llm agent reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.21240,
-
[9]
Understanding r1-zero-like training: A critical perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20783,
Zichen Liu, Changyu Chen, Wenjun Li, Penghui Qi, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, Wee Sun Lee, and Min Lin. Understanding r1-zero-like training: A critical perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20783,
-
[10]
Hieu Trung Nguyen, Bao Nguyen, Wenao Ma, Yuzhi Zhao, Ruifeng She, and Viet Anh Nguyen. Adaptive rollout allocation for online reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.01601,
-
[11]
Kishan Panaganti, Zhenwen Liang, Wenhao Yu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. Group distribu- tionally robust optimization-driven reinforcement learning for llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.19280,
-
[13]
SAGE: Answer-Conditioned Uncertainty Targets for Verbal Uncertainty Alignment
Kaiwen Shi, Zheyuan Zhang, and Yanfang Ye. Sage: Answer-conditioned uncertainty targets for verbal uncertainty alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.11512, 2026a. Kaiwen Shi, Zheyuan Zhang, Zhengqing Yuan, Keerthiram Murugesan, Vincent Galassi, Chuxu Zhang, and Yanfang Ye. Ng-router: Graph-supervised multi-agent collaboration for nutrition question answerin...
-
[14]
Ragen-2: Reasoning collapse in agentic rl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.06268,
Zihan Wang, Chi Gui, Xing Jin, Qineng Wang, Licheng Liu, Kangrui Wang, Shiqi Chen, Linjie Li, Zhengyuan Yang, Pingyue Zhang, et al. Ragen-2: Reasoning collapse in agentic rl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.06268,
Show all 33 references
-
[15]
Entropy-tree: Tree-based decoding with entropy-guided exploration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15296,
Longxuan Wei, Yubo Zhang, Zijiao Zhang, Zhihu Wang, Shiwan Zhao, Tianyu Huang, Huiting Zhao, Chenfei Liu, Shenao Zhang, and Junchi Yan. Entropy-tree: Tree-based decoding with entropy-guided exploration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15296,
-
[16]
Scaling search-augmented llm reasoning via adaptive information control
Siheng Xiong, Oguzhan Gungordu, Blair Johnson, James Clayton Kerce, and Faramarz Fekri. Scaling search-augmented llm reasoning via adaptive information control. InThe 1st Workshop on Scaling Post-training for LLMs. Siheng Xiong, Ali Payani, and Faramarz Fekri. Enhancing long c...
-
[17]
Wei Xiong, Chenlu Ye, Baohao Liao, Hanze Dong, Xinxing Xu, Christof Monz, Jiang Bian, Nan Jiang, and Tong Zhang
11 Preprint. Wei Xiong, Chenlu Ye, Baohao Liao, Hanze Dong, Xinxing Xu, Christof Monz, Jiang Bian, Nan Jiang, and Tong Zhang. Reinforce-ada: An adaptive sampling framework under non-linear rl objectives.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04996, 2025b. Zhicheng Yang, Zhijiang Guo, Yinya...
-
[19]
Llms4all: A review of large language models across academic disciplines.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19580,
Yanfang Ye, Zheyuan Zhang, Tianyi Ma, Zehong Wang, Yiyang Li, Shifu Hou, Weixiang Sun, Kaiwen Shi, Yijun Ma, Wei Song, et al. Llms4all: A review of large language models across academic disciplines.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19580,
-
[20]
Information gain-based rollout policy optimization: An adaptive tree-structured rollout approach for multi-turn llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.06223, 2026a
Yijun Zhang, Fan Xu, Jiaxin Ding, Yule Xie, Shiqing Gao, Xin Ding, Haoxiang Zhang, Luoyi Fu, and Xinbing Wang. Information gain-based rollout policy optimization: An adaptive tree-structured rollout approach for multi-turn llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.06223, 2026a. Zhe...
-
[21]
Mapro: Recasting multi-agent prompt optimization as maximum a posteriori inference
Zheyuan Zhang, Lin Ge, Hongjiang Li, Weicheng Zhu, Chuxu Zhang, and Yanfang Ye. Mapro: Recasting multi-agent prompt optimization as maximum a posteriori inference. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2026, pp. 4458–4480, 2026b. Zheyuan Zhang, Kaiw...
2026 arXiv
-
[22]
First return, entropy-eliciting explore.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07017,
Tianyu Zheng, Tianshun Xing, Qingshui Gu, Taoran Liang, Xingwei Qu, Xin Zhou, Yizhi Li, Zhoufutu Wen, Chenghua Lin, Wenhao Huang, et al. First return, entropy-eliciting explore.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07017,
-
[23]
TRACE: A unified rollout budget allocation framework for efficient agentic reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.11119,
Heming Zou, Qi Wang, Yun Qu, Yuhang Jiang, Lizhou Cai, Yixiu Mao, Ru Peng, Xin Xu, Weijie Liu, Kai Yang, Saiyong Yang, and Xiangyang Ji. TRACE: A unified rollout budget allocation framework for efficient agentic reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.11119,
-
[24]
APPENDIXCONTENTTABLE A Related Work 14 B Implementation Details and Additional Experiments 14 B.1 Benchmarks
12 Preprint. APPENDIXCONTENTTABLE A Related Work 14 B Implementation Details and Additional Experiments 14 B.1 Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 B.2 Baselines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
2025
-
[25]
While effective, these methods rely on final outcomes and thus overlook where uncertainty arises within multi-step reasoning
as proxies. While effective, these methods rely on final outcomes and thus overlook where uncertainty arises within multi-step reasoning. This issue is amplified in agentic too use settings, where rewards are sparse and delayed, and failures often originate from specific inter...
2025
-
[26]
IGRPO (Zhang et al., 2026a) instead expands trajectory trees according to information gain and derives an induced teacher distribution for policy optimization
derives state scores from historical success statistics and couples adaptive rollout allocation with step-wise credit assignment and post-step updates. IGRPO (Zhang et al., 2026a) instead expands trajectory trees according to information gain and derives an induced teacher dis...
2026
-
[27]
The agent interacts with the environment through search, page navigation, item inspection, and purchase decisions
is a web-based shopping benchmark in which an agent must satisfy a user request by navigating product search pages and selecting an appropriate item. The agent interacts with the environment through search, page navigation, item inspection, and purchase decisions. We use WebSh...
2024
-
[28]
1 n nX i=1 Acent i 2 # = n−1 n σ2 R,E
Unlike shadow mode, live mode executes a single selected branch action rather than running an accept-or-stop sweep. It’s worth noting that Recoverability is not readable from entropy, but it is learnable.Figure 7 probes why rollout intervention must be learned rather than trig...
2026
-
[29]
VIP provides a complementary gradient-level justification: under standard conditional i.i.d
Connection to VIP’s projected-gradient analysis.Lemma C.1 gives a direct advantage-level justification for reward variance. VIP provides a complementary gradient-level justification: under standard conditional i.i.d. rollout assumptions and second-order decorrelation assumptio...
2026
-
[31]
The variation-budget literature motivates modeling policy-induced non-stationarity through the drift term DT (Besbes et al., 2014; 2015)
and is developed more explicitly through cost-sensitive classification oracle reductions (Agarwal et al., 2014). The variation-budget literature motivates modeling policy-induced non-stationarity through the drift term DT (Besbes et al., 2014; 2015). In our analysis, the addit...
2014
-
[34]
42" rather than
Why fixed or restricted intervention rules can incur linear regret.The theorem above establishes that RAIL can track the best structured intervention when recoverability is learnable and policy- induced drift is controlled. We now show why fixed heuristics or restricted action...
2026
-
[42]
name":"sql_query
<tool_call> {"name":"sql_query","arguments":{"query":"SELECT`name`FROM`User Data`WHERE`id`= 42"}} </tool_call> Tool: John Smith Assistant: The query returned John Smith, so that is the answer. <tool_call> {"name":"answer_action","arguments":{"answer":"John Smith"}} </tool_call...
2015
-
[2007]
Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, et al
10 Preprint. Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, et al. Agentbench: Evaluating llms as agents. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pp. 52989–53046,
2024
-
[2011]
3SPO: State-score-supervised policy optimization for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.09961,
Yu Han, Kailing Li, Yang Jiao, Yulin Dai, Yuqian Fu, Linhai Zhuo, and Tianwen Qian. 3SPO: State-score-supervised policy optimization for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.09961,
-
[2015]
Temperature as a meta-policy: Adaptive temperature in llm reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11779,
Haoran Dang, Cuiling Lan, Hai Wan, Xibin Zhao, and Yan Lu. Temperature as a meta-policy: Adaptive temperature in llm reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11779,
-
[2022]
Coba-rl: Capability-oriented budget allocation for reinforcement learning in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03048,
Zhiyuan Yao, Yi-Kai Zhang, Yuxin Chen, Yueqing Sun, Zishan Xu, Yu Yang, Tianhao Hu, Qi Gu, Hui Su, and Xunliang Cai. Coba-rl: Capability-oriented budget allocation for reinforcement learning in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03048,
-
[2023]
Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathemat- ical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300,
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 mathemat- ical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300,
-
[2024]
Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem.Machine learning, 47(2):235–256, 2002a
Peter Auer, Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi, and Paul Fischer. Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem.Machine learning, 47(2):235–256, 2002a. Peter Auer, Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi, Yoav Freund, and Robert E Schapire. The nonstochastic multiarmed bandit problem.SIAM journal on com...
-
[2025]
How to allocate, how to learn? dynamic rollout allocation and advantage modulation for policy optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.19208,
Yangyi Fang, Jiaye Lin, Xiaoliang Fu, Cong Qin, Haolin Shi, Chaowen Hu, Lu Pan, Ke Zeng, and Xunliang Cai. How to allocate, how to learn? dynamic rollout allocation and advantage modulation for policy optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.19208,
-
[2026]
Agentic entropy-balanced policy optimization
Guanting Dong, Licheng Bao, Zhongyuan Wang, Kangzhi Zhao, Xiaoxi Li, Jiajie Jin, Jinghan Yang, Hangyu Mao, Fuzheng Zhang, Kun Gai, et al. Agentic entropy-balanced policy optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14545, 2025a. Guanting Dong, Hangyu Mao, Kai Ma, Licheng Bao, Yifei...
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.