Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Soft Best-of-n Sampling for Model Alignment

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 Soft Best-of-n sampling with temperature λ converges to optimal tilt at rate 1/n.

desk verdict Solid O(1/n) upper bounds for Soft Best-of-n, but the claimed converse (Theorem 2) is false as stated and the blockwise 'fundamental limitation' rests on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03156 v1 pith:F5H7G3CY submitted 2025-05-06 cs.IT cs.AImath.IT

Claudio Mayrink Verdun , Alex Oesterling , Himabindu Lakkaraju , Flavio P. Calmon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITcs.AImath.IT MSC 94A1762B10
keywords best-of-nsamplingsoftexponentialtiltingKLdivergencemodelalignmentrewardmaximizationsamplecomplexitytemperatureparameter
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 introduces a variant of Best-of-n sampling for aligning a language model with a reward function: draw $n$ candidate responses, then pick one with probability proportional to $e^{r(x)/\lambda}$ instead of always picking the highest-reward one. The central claim is that as $n$ grows, this Soft Best-of-n distribution approaches the optimal exponentially tilted distribution $P_\lambda^*(x) \propto P(x)e^{r(x)/\lambda}$—the exact solution of the KL-constrained reward-maximization problem—with both KL divergence and relative reward gap shrinking at rate $O(1/n)$. Because $\lambda$ interpolates smoothly between the base distribution and hard Best-of-n, a practitioner can target any point on the Pareto frontier of reward versus KL distance, which ordinary Best-of-n cannot do for small $n$. The paper also shows that in an additive-reward model for sequences, blockwise sampling needs exponentially many samples in block length, whereas symbolwise sampling decouples the required sample count from length.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Soft Best-of-n distribution $P_{n,\lambda}(x)=P(x)e^{r_\lambda(x)}\mathbb{E}[1/(\frac{1}{n}e^{r_\lambda(x)}+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}e^{r_\lambda(X_i)})]$, obtained in Lemma 1 by a symmetry reduction. The argument then applies Jensen's inequality to this expectation, converting the approximation gap into the coefficient of variation of $e^{r_\lambda(X)}$; a variance bound for bounded random variables controls that coefficient when $r(x)\in[0,1]$. A normal-approximation argument supplies the matching lower bound, and the additive reward model $r(x^m)=\frac{1}{m}\sum_i r(x_i)$ reduces blockwise moment ratios to $m$-th powers of per-symbol quantities, exposing the exponential sample-complexity gap.

What would settle it

For the mathematical claim, any finite alphabet and bounded reward where the true $D_{\mathrm{KL}}(P_\lambda^*\parallel P_{n,\lambda})$ exceeds $\log(1+\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{CV}(e^{r_\lambda(X)})^2)$ would refute Theorem 1; for the practical transfer, holding $\lambda$ fixed on a real language model and measuring the empirical KL gap as n grows should show roughly $1/n$ decay, while a plateau or much slower decay would falsify the claim that the i.i.d. guarantee carries over.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the distribution $P_{n,\lambda}$ produced by Soft Best-of-n sampling—draw $n$ i.i.d. candidates from $P$ and return one with probability proportional to $e^{r(x)/\lambda}$—approximates the tilted optimal distribution $P_\lambda^*(x)\propto P(x)e^{r(x)/\lambda}$ with a quantitative gap that shrinks linearly in the sample count. Theorem 1 bounds $D_{\mathrm{KL}}(P_\lambda^*\parallel P_{n,\lambda})\le \log(1+\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{CV}(e^{r_\lambda(X)})^2)$, hence $O(1/n)$; Theorem 3 gives the same $O(1/n)$ relative convergence in expected reward; and Theorem 2 shows the rate cannot improve in general, via a total-variation lower bound of order $1/\sqrt{n}$ that implies an $\Omega(1/n)$ KL lower bound. For additive sequence rewards the blockwise version inherits the same bound with $m$ in place of $1$, but the number of samples needed to reach a fixed KL target grows exponentially in block length $m$.

Load-bearing premise

The blockwise sample-complexity result assumes the tokens in a response are independent and identically distributed and that the reward of a response is the sum of per-token rewards—conditions the paper itself says real language models do not satisfy; if those fail, the exponential-cost conclusion may not carry over.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Soft Best-of-n is guaranteed to be $\epsilon$-close in KL to the tilted distribution whenever $\lambda \ge 1/\log(1+4n\epsilon)$, so for fixed n a sufficiently large temperature puts the sampler on the optimal KL-reward Pareto frontier.
  • The relative expected-reward gap is at most $M(\lambda)/(M(\lambda)+n)$, meaning even moderate n nearly matches the reward of the exact tilt when $\lambda$ is not too small.
  • Hard Best-of-n appears as the $\lambda\to 0$ limit and the base distribution as $\lambda\to\infty$, so the convergence theorem interpolates between two previously studied regimes and places both relative to the tilted target.
  • In the additive model, blockwise Best-of-n needs $n=e^{O(m\epsilon^2)}$ samples to beat the mean reward by $\epsilon$, while blockwise Soft Best-of-n requires $n=O(\epsilon^{-1}e^{cm/\lambda'})$ samples to approximate the same tilt; symbolwise selection needs n independent of m.
  • The $O(1/n)$ KL rate is optimal in general: a binary example attains the coefficient-of-variation constant, and the total-variation lower bound rules out faster decay.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the bounds are explicit in n, $\lambda$, and the coefficient of variation, a practitioner could estimate $\mathrm{CV}(e^{r/\lambda})$ from unlabeled outputs and choose n from the bound instead of grid-searching; the paper does not prescribe this diagnostic.
  • Per-token soft selection should dominate whole-sequence resampling whenever reward evaluations are cheap relative to generation, since the additive model shows the required n for blockwise tilting grows exponentially in sequence length; this comparison is implicit in the paper's symbolwise-versus-blockwise analysis.
  • A natural testable extension is to use Soft Best-of-n with step-level (process) rewards on long reasoning chains, treating each step as a 'symbol' and leveraging the symbolwise sample-complexity advantage to reduce wall-clock cost.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Soft Best-of-n sampling, a temperature-parameterized generalization of Best-of-n in which the selected index is drawn according to softmax weights e^{r(X_i)/λ}. The main theoretical claim is that the induced distribution P_{n,λ} converges to the tilted optimal distribution P*_λ at rate O(1/n) in KL divergence, with explicit constants (Theorem 1), that this rate cannot be improved in general (Theorem 2), that the expected reward gap also shrinks as O(1/n) (Theorem 3), and that for an additive reward model over length-m blocks, blockwise sampling requires exponentially many samples in m (Theorem 4, Corollary 2, and equation (18)). The paper also positions the method as a way to interpolate smoothly between the base distribution and the reward-maximizing distribution, thereby spanning the KL-reward Pareto frontier.

Significance. If the upper-bound results stand, this is a useful theoretical contribution to inference-time alignment. Theorem 1 is clean, self-contained, and gives explicit constants; Theorem 3 provides a similarly clean reward-gap bound. The binary example in Appendix D is a nice explicit calculation that matches the O(1/n) leading constant of the upper bound. The blockwise additive-reward model is a sensible minimal setting for exposing a real trade-off between symbolwise and blockwise sampling. However, the claimed converse result (Theorem 2) is not merely missing a detail: it is contradicted by the paper's own binary expansion, which gives TV(P*_λ,P_{n,λ}) = O(1/n). The subsequent statements that the O(1/n) rate 'cannot be improved' and that the blockwise sample-complexity condition is optimal are therefore unsupported. The central constructive results are publishable, but the sharpness and 'fundamental limitation' claims require substantial correction.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Theorem 2 and Appendix E] Theorem 2, as stated, is false. In the binary example of Appendix D, the displayed expansion gives P_{n,λ}(1) = n p e^{1/λ}/(e^{1/λ} + (n-1)(p e^{1/λ} + 1 - p)) + O(1/n^2), so TV(P*_λ,P_{n,λ}) = |P*_λ(1) - P_{n,λ}(1)| = O(1/n). Consequently, for any fixed C' > 0, inequality (8) fails for all sufficiently large n. The Berry-Esseen argument in Appendix E cannot produce the claimed Ω(1/√n) gap: the fluctuation S_{n-1} - 1 is centered, so E[1/(c + S_{n-1})] differs from the mean-substituted value at order 1/n, whereas the proof's choice δ = O(1/√n) followed by a Gaussian tail bound creates a spurious O(1/√n) term. The proof also selects δ = 4C'/√(n-1) while stating only that this is valid for large n, and the appendix contains the sentence 'We will take care of it later' in the middle of the residual estimate. The claims following Theorem 2, including the statement that the O(1/n) rate 'cannot be improved' and the assertion in Section IV.C that condition (18) 'cannot be improved in general due to our lower bound', are therefore unsupported.
  2. [Section IV.C, Corollary 2 and equation (18)] The sufficient condition in Corollary 2 is mis-stated. The proof of Corollary 2 derives λ ≥ 2/(m log(1 + 4(n(e^ϵ - 1))^{1/m})), but the theorem statement says λ ≥ 2/log(1 + 4(nϵ)^{1/m}), omitting both the 1/m factor and replacing e^ϵ - 1 with ϵ. The same error propagates into equation (18): the manuscript writes λ' = λm ≥ 2/log(1 + 4(nϵ)^{1/m}) and concludes n ≥ (1/ϵ)((e^{2/λ'} - 1)/4)^m. Correcting the derivation gives λ' ≥ 2m/log(1 + 4(n(e^ϵ - 1))^{1/m}) and n ≥ (1/(e^ϵ - 1))((e^{2m/λ'} - 1)/4)^m. The qualitative exponential dependence on m survives this correction, but the displayed condition and constants in (18) are not established as written. In addition, Theorem 2, even if repaired, would not by itself prove necessity of (18); no matching lower bound for the blockwise Soft Best-of-n setting is provided.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix D] The sentence 'We will take care of it later' follows the claim that the cubic remainder is O(1/n^2); this residual estimate is load-bearing for the binary expansion and should be proved before publication.
  2. [Theorem 3] Theorem 3 requires a non-degeneracy assumption such as E_{P*_λ}[r_λ(X)] > 0; otherwise the relative reward gap is undefined (e.g., when r is identically zero). Please add this assumption explicitly.
  3. [Theorem 2] Theorem 2 states a bound 'for integer n ≥ 1', but the proof is explicitly asymptotic and assumes finite third moments and support conditions; the statement should be rephrased as a large-n statement with the required non-degeneracy conditions stated.
  4. [Theorem 4] The displayed statement of Theorem 4 is hard to parse: the exponent '^m' appears to apply to the entire CV-based factor, but the bracketing and the notation '−1!^m' are unclear. Rewrite the bound as D_KL(P^{*m}_λ ∥ P^m_{n,λ}) ≤ log(1 + (1/n) CV(e^{r(X)/(mλ)})^{2m}).
  5. [Appendix E] There is a typo in equation (25): 'DDKL' should be 'D_KL'.
  6. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says 'optional KL-reward Pareto frontier' but should say 'optimal KL-reward Pareto frontier'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tilted target is defined independently, the Soft Best-of-n distribution follows from its explicit sampling mechanism, and the bounds rely on external standard inequalities rather than fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The tilted target P*_lambda in (2) is the independent solution of the information-projection problem (1), and lambda is a user-selected temperature parameter, not a fitted quantity; no data subset or fitted constant is used to force the stated convergence rates. The Soft Best-of-n distribution P_{n,lambda} is defined by the separate sampling mechanism in Definition 2, and Lemma 1 derives an exact symmetry-based expression (4) directly from that definition, with the subsequent lower bound (5) obtained by Jensen's inequality. The upper bounds in Theorems 1 and 3 follow from standard external inequalities (Jensen, Bhatia-Davis, and elementary log bounds); none of these steps defines the predicted object in terms of the conclusion. The blockwise results in Section IV are explicitly restricted to an i.i.d. additive reward model, and the paper itself flags that this is not the actual LLM setting, which is a limitation rather than a circular reduction. The only author self-citation in the paper, reference [10] in the related-work sentence about tilted distributions, is background material and is not load-bearing for Theorems 1-4. Possible concerns about the correctness of the Theorem 2 lower bound, such as the binary example's O(1/n) TV decay appearing to contradict (8), are mathematical validity issues, not circularity, because they concern the accuracy of an inequality and do not involve fitting, renaming, or self-citation as the source of the claimed result.

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

There are no fitted parameters; λ is a user-selected temperature and n is the sample count. The analysis rests on standard inequalities and on modeling assumptions that the paper states explicitly, including an idealized i.i.d. additive reward model for the blockwise section. No new entities or fitted constants are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The alignment objective is the information projection (1) with KL constraint, and its solution is the tilted distribution (2).
    The paper adopts this framework from [5], [6] without deriving it; the entire convergence analysis targets this specific tilted distribution.
  • domain assumption The reward function r is bounded with 0 ≤ r(x) ≤ 1 for the rate bounds in Theorem 3, Corollary 1, and Corollary 2.
    These results use the bound e^{r/λ} ≤ e^{1/λ} and the Bhatia-Davis inequality; the boundedness restriction is stated but limits generality.
  • domain assumption The source is i.i.d. and the reward is additive in Section IV.
    The blockwise sample-complexity analysis assumes P^{⊗m}_X and r(x^m) = (1/m) Σ r(x_i), which the paper admits is false for real LLMs.
  • standard math Standard probability inequalities and limit theorems: Jensen, Bhatia-Davis, Hoeffding, Berry-Esseen, Pinsker, and the law of large numbers.
    Used throughout the proofs; these are accepted external results, not derived in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Soft Best-of-n Sampling for Model Alignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5H7G3CY

@misc{pith2026250503156,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Soft Best-of-n Sampling for Model Alignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5H7G3CY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03156}
}
abstract

Best-of-$n$ (BoN) sampling is a practical approach for aligning language model outputs with human preferences without expensive fine-tuning. BoN sampling is performed by generating $n$ responses to a prompt and then selecting the sample that maximizes a reward function. BoN yields high reward values in practice at a distortion cost, as measured by the KL-divergence between the sampled and original distribution. This distortion is coarsely controlled by varying the number of samples: larger $n$ yields a higher reward at a higher distortion cost. We introduce Soft Best-of-$n$ sampling, a generalization of BoN that allows for smooth interpolation between the original distribution and reward-maximizing distribution through a temperature parameter $\lambda$. We establish theoretical guarantees showing that Soft Best-of-$n$ sampling converges sharply to the optimal tilted distribution at a rate of $O(1/n)$ in KL and the expected (relative) reward. For sequences of discrete outputs, we analyze an additive reward model that reveals the fundamental limitations of blockwise sampling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03156 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Soft Best-of-n and BoN sampling, compared with the optimal Pareto frontier of exponential tilting for KL-reward tradeoffs. Soft Best-of-n sampling generalizes BoN and allows for control between KL and reward, allowing us to achieve near-optimal performance for all n. Alphabet of size 3 with distribution [0.75, 0.2, 0.05] and reward [0.016, 0.164, 0.820]. where our results do not guarantee near-optimality. For a fixe… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Best-of-Better-$N$: Generating Pre-Aligned Responses with In-Context Learning

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    BoBN retrieves and restyles high-reward examples into the prompt, shifting a reference LLM's sampling distribution toward high-reward responses and improving Best-of-N efficiency on safety and math.

  2. VIGOR: VIdeo Geometry-Oriented Reward for Temporal Generative Alignment

    cs.CV 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    A VGGT-based pointwise reprojection reward with geometry-aware sampling improves video geometric consistency via SFT/DPO and causal test-time search.

  3. Test-Time Scaling in Reasoning LLMs: Inference Regimes, Evaluation, and Reproducibility

    cs.LG 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper formalizes test-time scaling into three regimes, introduces a discovery-stability profile for repeated-sampling evaluation, and releases nearly two million reasoning traces.

  4. Connections between reinforcement learning with feedback,test-time scaling, and diffusion guidance: An anthology

    stat.ML 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    RLHF, RLIF, and soft best-of-N sampling reduce to the same exponential-tilting objective under parameter matching, and test-time scaling can asymptotically implement classifier-free diffusion guidance.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Cooper- ative inverse reinforcement learning,

    D. Hadfield-Menell, S. J. Russell, P. Abbeel, and A. Dragan, “Cooper- ative inverse reinforcement learning,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  2. [2]

    Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research direction,

    J. Leike, D. Krueger, T. Everitt, M. Martic, V . Maini, and S. Legg, “Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research direction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.07871 , 2018

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?

    E. M. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, and S. Shmitchell, “On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?” in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 2021, pp. 610–623

    2021

  4. [4]

    On the opportunities and risks of foundation models,

    R. Bommasani, D. A. Hudson, E. Adeli, R. Altman, S. Arora, S. von Arx, M. S. Bernstein, J. Bohg, A. Bosselut, E. Brunskill et al. , “On the opportunities and risks of foundation models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Information projections revisited,

    I. Csiszár and F. Matus, “Information projections revisited,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1474–1490, 2003

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    I-divergence geometry of probability distributions and minimization problems,

    I. Csiszár, “I-divergence geometry of probability distributions and minimization problems,” The annals of probability , pp. 146–158, 1975

    work page 1975

  7. [7]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,

    L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray et al. , “Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 35, pp. 27 730–27 744, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Nonsymmetrical distance between probability distribu- tions, entropy and the theorem of pythagoras,

    N. N. Chentsov, “Nonsymmetrical distance between probability distribu- tions, entropy and the theorem of pythagoras,” Mathematical notes of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 686–691, 1968

    work page 1968

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Generalized projections for non-negative functions,

    I. Csiszár, “Generalized projections for non-negative functions,” in Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory. IEEE, 1995, p. 6

    1995

  2. [10]

    Model projection: Theory and applications to fair machine learning,

    W. Alghamdi, S. Asoodeh, H. Wang, F. P. Calmon, D. Wei, and K. N. Ramamurthy, “Model projection: Theory and applications to fair machine learning,” in 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT). IEEE, 2020, pp. 2711–2716

    2020

  3. [11]

    Efficient methods for generating some exponentially tilted random variates,

    M. K. Nakayama, “Efficient methods for generating some exponentially tilted random variates,” in Proceedings of the 24th conference on Winter simulation, 1992, pp. 603–608

    1992

  4. [12]

    Sampling exponentially tilted stable distributions,

    M. Hofert, “Sampling exponentially tilted stable distributions,” ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS) , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    Efficient exponential tilting with applications,

    C.-D. Fuh and C.-J. Wang, “Efficient exponential tilting with applications,” Statistics and Computing , vol. 34, no. 2, p. 65, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Information theoretic approaches to inference in moment condition models,

    G. W. Imbens, R. H. Spady, and P. Johnson, “Information theoretic approaches to inference in moment condition models,” Econometrica, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 333–357, 1998

    1998

  7. [15]

    An information-theoretic alternative to generalized method of moments estimation,

    Y . Kitamura and M. Stutzer, “An information-theoretic alternative to generalized method of moments estimation,” Econometrica, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 861–874, 1997

    1997

  8. [16]

    On large deviations theory and asymptotically efficient monte carlo estimation,

    J. S. Sadowsky and J. A. Bucklew, “On large deviations theory and asymptotically efficient monte carlo estimation,” IEEE transactions on Information Theory, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 579–588, 1990

    1990

  9. [17]

    Importance sampling in the monte carlo study of sequential tests,

    D. Siegmund, “Importance sampling in the monte carlo study of sequential tests,” The Annals of Statistics , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 673–684,

  10. [18]

    Asmussen and P

    S. Asmussen and P. W. Glynn, Stochastic simulation: algorithms and analysis. Springer, 2007, vol. 57

    2007

  11. [19]

    Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences,

    P. F. Christiano, J. Leike, T. Brown, M. Martic, S. Legg, and D. Amodei, “Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Learning to summarize with human feedback,

    N. Stiennon, L. Ouyang, J. Wu, D. Ziegler, R. Lowe, C. V oss, A. Radford, D. Amodei, and P. F. Christiano, “Learning to summarize with human feedback,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 33, pp. 3008–3021, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model,

    R. Rafailov, A. Sharma, E. Mitchell, C. D. Manning, S. Ermon, and C. Finn, “Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization,

    L. Gao, J. Schulman, and J. Hilton, “Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 10 835–10 866

    2023

  15. [23]

    Controlled decoding from language models,

    S. Mudgal, J. Lee, H. Ganapathy, Y . Li, T. Wang, Y . Huang, Z. Chen, H.-T. Cheng, M. Collins, T. Strohman et al., “Controlled decoding from language models,” in Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Asymp- totics of language model alignment,

    J. Q. Yang, S. Salamatian, Z. Sun, A. T. Suresh, and A. Beirami, “Asymp- totics of language model alignment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01730 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Information theoretic guarantees for policy alignment in large language models,

    Y . Mroueh, “Information theoretic guarantees for policy alignment in large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05883 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Prox- imal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Prox- imal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    BoNBoN Alignment for Large Language Models and the Sweetness of Best-of-n Sampling,

    L. Gui, C. Garbacea, and V . Veitch, “BoNBoN Alignment for Large Language Models and the Sweetness of Best-of-n Sampling,” in The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Regularized best-of-n sampling to mitigate reward hacking for language model alignment,

    Y . Jinnai, T. Morimura, K. Ariu, and K. Abe, “Regularized best-of-n sampling to mitigate reward hacking for language model alignment,” in ICML 2024 Workshop on Models of Human Feedback for AI Alignment , 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Evaluation of best-of-n sampling strategies for language model alignment,

    Y . Ichihara, Y . Jinnai, T. Morimura, K. Abe, K. Ariu, M. Sakamoto, and E. Uchibe, “Evaluation of best-of-n sampling strategies for language model alignment,” Transactions on Machine Learning Research , 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Variational best-of-n alignment,

    A. Amini, T. Vieira, and R. Cotterell, “Variational best-of-n alignment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06057 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Treebon: Enhancing inference-time alignment with speculative tree-search and best-of-n sampling,

    J. Qiu, Y . Lu, Y . Zeng, J. Guo, J. Geng, H. Wang, K. Huang, Y . Wu, and M. Wang, “Treebon: Enhancing inference-time alignment with speculative tree-search and best-of-n sampling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16033 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Accelerating best-of-n via speculative rejection,

    R. Zhang, M. Haider, M. Yin, J. Qiu, M. Wang, P. Bartlett, and A. Zanette, “Accelerating best-of-n via speculative rejection,” in 2nd Workshop on Advancing Neural Network Training: Computational Efficiency, Scalability, and Resource Optimization (WANT@ ICML 2024) , 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Webgpt: Browser- assisted question-answering with human feedback,

    R. Nakano, J. Hilton, S. Balaji, J. Wu, L. Ouyang, C. Kim, C. Hesse, S. Jain, V . Kosaraju, W. Saunders et al., “Webgpt: Browser- assisted question-answering with human feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09332, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Measuring goodhart’s law: Towards an evaluation framework for open-ended generative models,

    J. Hilton, P. Clark et al. , “Measuring goodhart’s law: Towards an evaluation framework for open-ended generative models,” OpenAI Blog, 2022, accessed: 2025-01-30. [Online]. Available: https://openai.com/ index/measuring-goodharts-law

    2022

  27. [35]

    Theoretical guarantees on the best-of-n alignment policy,

    A. Beirami, A. Agarwal, J. Berant, A. D’Amour, J. Eisenstein, C. Nagpal, and A. T. Suresh, “Theoretical guarantees on the best-of-n alignment policy,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01879 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A better bound on the variance,

    R. Bhatia and C. Davis, “A better bound on the variance,” The american mathematical monthly, vol. 107, no. 4, pp. 353–357, 2000

    2000

  29. [37]

    The accuracy of the gaussian approximation to the sum of independent variates,

    A. C. Berry, “The accuracy of the gaussian approximation to the sum of independent variates,” Transactions of the american mathematical society, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 122–136, 1941

    1941

  30. [38]

    Esseen, On the Liapounoff Limit of Error in the Theory of Probability

    C. Esseen, On the Liapounoff Limit of Error in the Theory of Probability . Almqvist & Wiksell, 1942

    1942

  31. [39]

    T. M. Cover, Elements of information theory . John Wiley & Sons, 1999

    1999

  32. [40]

    Concentration inequalities and martingale in- equalities: a survey,

    F. Chung and L. Lu, “Concentration inequalities and martingale in- equalities: a survey,” Internet mathematics , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 79–127, 2006

    2006

  33. [41]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models,

    H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y . Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosale et al., “Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bond: Aligning llms with best-of-n distillation,

    P. G. Sessa, R. Dadashi, L. Hussenot, J. Ferret, N. Vieillard, A. Ramé, B. Shariari, S. Perrin, A. Friesen, G. Cideron et al., “Bond: Aligning llms with best-of-n distillation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14622 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, D. Zhou et al., “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 35, pp. 24 824–24 837, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Let’s verify step by step,

    H. Lightman, V . Kosaraju, Y . Burda, H. Edwards, B. Baker, T. Lee, J. Leike, J. Schulman, I. Sutskever, and K. Cobbe, “Let’s verify step by step,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Solving math word problems with process-and outcome-based feedback,

    J. Uesato, N. Kushman, R. Kumar, F. Song, N. Siegel, L. Wang, A. Creswell, G. Irving, and I. Higgins, “Solving math word problems with process-and outcome-based feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14275 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A probabilistic inference approach to inference-time scaling of llms using particle-based monte carlo methods,

    I. Puri, S. Sudalairaj, G. Xu, K. Xu, and A. Srivastava, “A probabilistic inference approach to inference-time scaling of llms using particle-based monte carlo methods,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01618 , 2025. APPENDIX a) Roadmap.: This appendix provides detailed proofs and te...

    2025 arXiv

  39. [48]

    symbolwise

    demonstrated the asymptotic equivalence between BoN and KL-constrained reinforcement learning under certain conditions, providing theoretical justification for BoN’s strong empirical performance. Empirically, [22] and [34] found that the KL-reward tradeoff for both RL and BoN ...

  40. [1976]

    Available: https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aos/1176343541

    [Online]. Available: https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aos/1176343541

Pith tools

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