Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 9 minor 15 cited by

Reinforcement Learning Enhanced LLMs: A Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new survey organizes RL-enhanced LLMs into two competing alignment families: reward-model-based RLHF/RLAIF and reward-free DPO.

desk verdict Broad but uneven survey: useful orientation for newcomers, yet the RLAIF taxonomy contains real misclassifications and the gap-filling claim is overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10400 v3 pith:I7N2KOTX submitted 2024-12-05 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Shuhe Wang , Shengyu Zhang , Jie Zhang , Runyi Hu , Xiaoya Li , Tianwei Zhang , Jiwei Li , Fei Wu
show 2 more authors
Guoyin Wang Eduard Hovy
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords reinforcementlearninglargelanguagemodelsRLHFRLAIFdirectpreferenceoptimizationPPOmodelalignmentsurvey
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 survey sets out to consolidate the fast-growing literature on reinforcement learning (RL) as a post-training step for large language models (LLMs), motivated by the success of models like DeepSeek-R1. Its central claim is that RL-enhanced training has become a standard ingredient in state-of-the-art LLMs, and that the field is best understood as two families: reward-model-based methods (RLHF and RLAIF) and reward-model-free preference optimization led by DPO. The paper argues that the field's complexity and the absence of a comprehensive survey have slowed systematic understanding, and it responds by organizing the basics of RL, the RL-enhanced models themselves, the main alignment techniques, and the current challenges. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's contribution to be a map of the territory that helps researchers locate methods and open problems rather than a new algorithm.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is the mapping of an LLM into an RL agent, following the InstructGPT framework: the model is the policy, the token sequence is the state, the next token is the action, and a trained reward model supplies the scalar reward. On top of this mapping the survey builds its main taxonomy — reward-model-based alignment (RLHF, RLAIF) versus reward-model-free preference optimization (DPO and its variants) — and uses that split to structure the literature. The taxonomy does the work of the argument: it turns a scattered set of technical reports and method papers into two coherent research programs with distinct costs, failure modes, and open problems.

What would settle it

Take any model row in Table 1 and check the official technical report for the stated post-training algorithm; if a model attributed to DPO or RLHF actually used a different preference-optimization method, the survey's organizing taxonomy misrepresents the literature. A systematic mismatch across several rows would show the consolidation is unreliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's contribution is a systematic organization of how RL is applied to LLMs. It identifies a canonical three-step pipeline — training a reward model, scoring generated responses, and optimizing the policy with an algorithm such as PPO — and then surveys two routes built on it: RLHF, which uses human preference labels, and RLAIF, which substitutes AI feedback for scalability. It then treats Direct Preference Optimization and its variants as a second broad route that eliminates the reward model entirely by framing alignment as a classification-style objective over preference pairs. The survey also catalogs RL-enhanced production models, from InstructGPT and GPT-4 to DeepSeek-R1, Kimi-k1.5, Llama 3, and Qwen2, and collects the main failure modes — out-of-distribution reward models, poor interpretability, reward hacking, and safety concerns — alongside evaluation resources such as RewardBench. The overall claim is that the rapidly growing body of work can be consolidated into this taxonomy, and that doing so clarifies both current challenges and promising directions.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's value depends on the reliability of its compact paraphrases of dozens of cited papers, since it does not itself verify the methods or numbers it reports.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the taxonomy holds, the practical choice for aligning a new model is between an expensive reward-model pipeline (RLHF/RLAIF with PPO-style optimization) and a cheaper DPO-style direct preference loss.
  • The prominence of DeepSeek-R1, Kimi-k1.5, and o1 implies that RL through long chain-of-thought is a mainstream route to reasoning capability, not a one-off experiment.
  • RLAIF's reliance on AI-generated feedback implies that alignment can scale beyond human annotation, with consistency and cost advantages that the survey claims.
  • The failure modes the survey collects — OOD reward models, reward hacking, verbosity bias, and safety trade-offs — define a checklist that any RL-enhancement method must address.
  • The survey's DPO section implies that the reward model may be an implementation detail rather than a conceptual requirement for preference alignment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If reward-model-free methods keep closing the gap with PPO-based RLHF, the field may converge on hybrid pipelines where DPO-style losses handle most alignment and small online RL stages handle targeted skills; that synthesis is implied by the survey's structure but not stated by the authors.
  • The survey's reliance on single-sentence summaries of dozens of primary papers means a reader should treat its method attributions (for example, which model used DPO versus RLHF) as pointers to verify against the original technical reports rather than as verified facts.
  • A testable extension would be to turn Table 1 into a living benchmark that tracks which RL method each released model actually used, since the taxonomy's usefulness degrades as models adopt mixed pipelines like iterative DPO plus online RL.
  • The boundary between RLAIF and self-rewarding methods suggests a possible convergence: if a model can judge its own outputs well enough, the reward model and the policy may eventually be the same network, which would collapse the survey's two families into one.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 9 minor

Summary. This paper presents a survey of reinforcement learning (RL) techniques applied to large language models (LLMs). It covers RL basics, a set of popular RL-enhanced LLMs (DeepSeek-R1, Kimi-k1.5, InstructGPT, GPT-4, Gemini, among others), the RLHF pipeline, RLAIF, DPO and its variants, and analyses of challenges such as reward-model out-of-distribution robustness, interpretability, safety, and evaluation. The authors claim to fill a gap left by the absence of a comprehensive survey on RL-enhanced LLMs, and they organize the material by technique and by model, with numerous tables and figures borrowed from primary sources.

Significance. The topic is timely, and the scope is appropriate for a survey: RLHF, RLAIF, and DPO are currently the dominant alignment paradigms, so a reliable consolidation would be valuable to practitioners and newcomers. The paper does not ship code or machine-checked proofs, but it does provide a broad model-level overview (e.g., the multi-stage training pipeline of DeepSeek-R1), a comparison table of models, and discussions of open problems. However, the survey's usefulness depends entirely on accurate classification and faithful summarization of primary sources. In its current form, several core entries are misclassified (Section 5.2) or factually wrong (Table 1, Section 5.1), which compromises the reliability of the consolidation. If these issues are fixed, the survey could serve as a useful entry point; as written, the taxonomic errors are load-bearing because the paper's stated contribution is accurate organization of the field.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2] The subsection titled 'Prompting LLMs As a Reward Function' sits under 'RLAIF: Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback' (Section 5), whose opening defines RLAIF as using AI systems 'to provide feedback on the outputs of the LLM being trained.' ELLM (Du et al., 2023) uses an LLM to propose exploration goals for a separate RL agent in Crafter and Housekeep; Eureka (Ma et al., 2023) generates reward-function code for robot RL; RDLM (Kwon et al., 2023) prompts GPT-3 to output reward values for RL agents; and Text2Reward (Xie et al., 2023) generates reward code for RL tasks. None of these methods trains an LLM policy with RL from AI feedback; they are instances of LLMs as reward designers for non-LLM RL agents. Including them in the RLAIF category conflates 'LLMs for RL' with 'RL for LLMs' and would mislead a reader about the RLAIF literature. These entries should be moved to a separate category or explicitly marked as LLM-for-RL methods rather than RL-enhanced-LLM methods.
  2. [§5.1] HelpSteer2 (Wang et al., 2024d) is presented under 'Distilling AI Feedback to Train Reward Model,' with the text saying 'Preference pairs are crafted based on human or automated evaluations.' The original HelpSteer2 paper describes the dataset as constructed from human ratings: annotators rated responses along dimensions such as helpfulness, correctness, coherence, complexity, and verbosity, and those human labels were used to train reward models. There is no AI-generated feedback in the HelpSteer2 construction. Classifying it under AI feedback is a factual misrepresentation of the cited work and gives readers an incorrect picture of the dataset's provenance.
  3. [Table 1 and §3.8] The Zephyr entry lists '141B-A39B' (39B active parameters), and Section 3.8 is titled 'Zephyr 141B-A39B.' However, the cited model card (HuggingFaceH4, 2024, 'zephyr-orpo-141b-A35b-v0.1') states that the model has 141B total and 35B active parameters. The survey is internally consistent but factually wrong relative to the primary source. Since Table 1 is a key reference for readers, this error should be corrected to A35B.
  4. [Abstract and §1] The motivating claim that 'the absence of a comprehensive survey summarizing existing research on RL-enhanced LLMs has limited progress' is stated without engagement with existing surveys of RLHF and preference optimization (e.g., Casper et al., 2023, 'Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of RLHF,' and the several RLHF surveys published in 2023–2024). The manuscript has no related-work section comparing its scope and coverage with prior surveys, so the novelty claim is unsubstantiated. The authors should either qualify the claim (e.g., 'a survey covering RLHF, RLAIF, and DPO jointly') or cite and differentiate the prior surveys.
minor comments (9)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the typo 'Depsite' for 'Despite', and the sentence 'Project page of this work can be found at our latest repo' should give the actual URL found later in the full text.
  2. [§2.1.2] The sentence 'the agent receives a reward tt' should read 'a reward rt', matching the notation of the preceding paragraph.
  3. [§1] The introduction cites a large number of tangential works (e.g., text classification, sentiment analysis, GPT-NER), several of which are the authors' own papers and do not concern RL-enhanced LLMs; this inflates the reference list and should be trimmed or moved to a less prominent position.
  4. [§5.1] The Magpie entry describes an instruction-synthesis dataset rather than an RLAIF reward-model training method; if retained, its relevance to 'Distilling AI Feedback to Train Reward Model' should be clarified.
  5. [§6.3] The entry for Quark is described as equipping reward models with unlearning mechanisms, but the original paper is a text-generation method that uses a reward function to guide conditional generation; the description should be aligned with the source terminology.
  6. [§8.2] The sentence 'SPPO reformulates language model optimization as a constant-sum two-player game' is slightly ambiguous; the original method is a two-player constant-sum game formulation of preference optimization, and the phrasing should be adjusted for accuracy.
  7. [§3.2] The claim of 'up to 550% improvement over existing models such as GPT-4o and Claude 3.5' should be stated relative to which baseline and with the exact metric, to avoid overstatement.
  8. [Figures] Several figures (e.g., Figures 3, 6, 7) contain lengthy verbatim text from the original papers embedded as images; replacing these with original schematic summaries would avoid copyright concerns and would make the survey's expository voice more consistent.
  9. [§9] The conclusion is a single paragraph that only restates the paper structure; a bulleted summary of the main open problems and the survey's limitations would strengthen the closing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity; survey is a literature consolidation with no derivation chain and only non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

This paper is a survey rather than a derivation or empirical study, so the circularity patterns based on fitted inputs, predictions, or equations reducing to their inputs are structurally inapplicable. Its content is a sequence of summaries of external works, and it does not fit parameters, make predictions, or derive new results. The only load-bearing assertion is the motivating claim that 'the absence of a comprehensive survey summarizing existing research on RL-enhanced LLMs has limited progress in this domain' (Abstract); that is an editorial/empirical claim, not a derived result, and it does not follow from any fitted quantity or from the paper's own citations. The introduction cites several papers by the authors (e.g., Sun et al. 2023b,c; Wang et al. 2023a,b; Zhang et al. 2023a) as general evidence of LLM capabilities, but these citations are background support, not load-bearing for the survey's organization, and none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or used to justify an exclusion of alternatives. The taxonomic misplacements noted by the skeptic, such as placing ELLM, Eureka, and Text2Reward under RLAIF and describing HelpSteer2 as built from 'human or automated evaluations,' are accuracy and categorization concerns, not circular reductions: no claim of this survey is equivalent to its input by construction. Therefore the circularity score is minimal, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation burden.

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

The survey introduces no free parameters and no new entities. Its axioms are the accuracy of its secondary summaries, the validity of its taxonomy, and the truth of its claim that no prior survey exists. The last assumption is contradicted by published RLHF surveys.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The cited papers are accurately and faithfully summarized.
    The entire survey rests on the correctness of its descriptions of other papers; misrepresentation in any summary could mislead readers. This assumption underlies Sections 3 through 8.
  • domain assumption The tripartite taxonomy (RLHF, RLAIF, DPO) adequately covers the space of RL-enhanced LLM methods.
    The survey organizes the field into these three categories, but methods like GRPO and ORPO are forced into this scheme without deep discussion. This framing is assumed, not justified.
  • ad hoc to paper The claim that no comprehensive survey exists is true.
    The abstract and introduction assert the absence of prior surveys, but multiple RLHF surveys exist. This assumption is false, which weakens the paper's motivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reinforcement Learning Enhanced LLMs: A Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7N2KOTX

@misc{pith2026241210400,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reinforcement Learning Enhanced LLMs: A Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7N2KOTX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10400}
}
read the original abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) enhanced large language models (LLMs), particularly exemplified by DeepSeek-R1, have exhibited outstanding performance. Despite the effectiveness in improving LLM capabilities, its implementation remains highly complex, requiring complex algorithms, reward modeling strategies, and optimization techniques. This complexity poses challenges for researchers and practitioners in developing a systematic understanding of RL-enhanced LLMs. Moreover, the absence of a comprehensive survey summarizing existing research on RL-enhanced LLMs has limited progress in this domain, hindering further advancements. In this work, we are going to make a systematic review of the most up-to-date state of knowledge on RL-enhanced LLMs, attempting to consolidate and analyze the rapidly growing research in this field, helping researchers understand the current challenges and advancements. Specifically, we (1) detail the basics of RL; (2) introduce popular RL-enhanced LLMs; (3) review researches on two widely-used reward model-based RL techniques: Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF); and (4) explore Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), a set of methods that bypass the reward model to directly use human preference data for aligning LLM outputs with human expectations. We will also point out current challenges and deficiencies of existing methods and suggest some avenues for further improvements. Project page of this work can be found at https://github.com/ShuheWang1998/Reinforcement-Learning-Enhanced-LLMs-A-Survey.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10400 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of the full process of RL. Training Objective: The goal is to train a robot to navigate from the bottom-left corner of a square to the top-right corner. Each grid cell is assigned a reward score, and the objective is to maximize the robot’s overall score. General Pipeline of RL: The agent begins in an initial state s0, and at each time step t, it selects an action at based on its current state st. In resp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of RL for LLMs proposed by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. This figure illustrates the process of self-synthesizing instruction data from aligned LLMs Figure 4: Magpie self-synthesizes data from aligned LLMsThe figure is borrowed from Xu et al(2024b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Identified bias types and examples in OffsetBias. The figure is borrowed from ic Colas Trevor Darrell Pieter Abbeel ob Andreas 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ELLM uses a pretrained large language model (LLM) to suggest plausibly useful goals in a task-agnostic way. Building on LLM capabilities such as context￾sensitivity and common-sense, ELLM trains RL agents to pursue goals that are likely meaningful without requiring dir…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: EUREKA takes unmodified environment source code and language task description as context to zero-shot generate executable reward functions from a coding LLM. Then, it iterates between reward sampling, GPU-accelerated reward evaluation, and reward reflection to progress…
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Self-Rewarding Language Models. Our self-alignment method consists of two steps: (i) Self-Instruction creation: newly created prompts are used to generate candidate responses from model Mt, which also predicts its own rewards via LLM-as-a-Judge prompting. (ii) Instruct…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Illustration of a scalar reward model and the proposed Con-J. The figure is copied from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Architecture of our reward model. It consists of an LLM backbone, a regression layer for Figure 14: Overview of ArmoRM. The figure is borrowed from Wang et al. (2024b). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The overall framework of Quark. The figure is copied from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two-Stage Annotation Process. The first stage involves evaluating the harmlessness of a Figure 18: Annotation process of BeaverTailsThe figure is copied from Ji et al(2024) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The scoring method of the R Figure 20: The prompt-choice-rejection tri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of direct assessment and pairwise ranking. Both responses could be considered decent under Figure 21: The dual-task framework of Prometheus 2The figure is copied from Kim et al(2024b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Overview of sDPO where preference datasets are divided to be used in multiple steps. The figure is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: RSO fits a pairwise reward-ranking model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_23.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Illustration of our implementation of iterative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Safe RLHF pipeline compared to conventional RLHF method. The figure is borrowed from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Illustration of DPO and D2O Comparison. The figure is borrowed from Duan et al. (2024) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Illustration of how SPO is applied where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Illustration of DPOP avoiding a failure mode of DPO. The figure is borrowed from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_29.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 15 Pith papers

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

  1. AR$^2$: Adversarial Reinforcement Learning for Abstract Reasoning in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adversarial teacher-student RL on computationally equivalent narrative rewrites of coding problems yields modest but consistent pass@1 gains on competitive programming benchmarks.

  2. CUDA-L1: Improving CUDA Optimization via Contrastive Reinforcement Learning

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A contrastive reinforcement learning framework, CUDA-L1, trains an LLM to optimize CUDA kernels and reports 3.12x average speedup on KernelBench, though evaluation is on the same tasks used for training.

  3. Multimodal Item Parameter Estimation using Simulated Response Probabilitie

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Fine-tuned multimodal LLMs that imitate students at discrete ability levels recover item difficulty parameters on held-out math items, reaching Pearson 0.85, better than text-only regression baselines.

  4. MedCalc-R1: Knowledge-Guided Reward Framework for Medical Mathematical Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A knowledge-guided reward framework combining formula verification with a hybrid soft-hard accuracy reward improves medical calculation accuracy for small language models on MedCalc-Bench.

  5. Graphs Meet AI Agents: Taxonomy, Progress, and Future Opportunities

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A survey that groups graph-empowered AI agent research into planning, execution, memory, and multi-agent coordination, plus agents-for-graphs and applications.

  6. From Emergence to Control: Probing and Modulating Self-Reflection in Language Models

    cs.LG 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Self-reflection in LLMs can be steered up or down by a single activation-space vector, improving accuracy when amplified and cutting output length when suppressed.

  7. Three Minds, One Legend: Jailbreak Large Reasoning Model with Adaptive Stacked Ciphers

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A stacked-cipher jailbreak with adaptive code selection achieves 80.8% to 100% attack success on commercial large reasoning models.

  8. Adaptive Graph of Thoughts: Test-Time Adaptive Reasoning Unifying Chain, Tree, and Graph Structures

    cs.AI 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    AGoT is a recursive graph-based prompting framework that decomposes LLM queries into nested subgraphs and reports large relative gains on some benchmarks, though headline GPQA gains rely on a shuffled subset.

  9. Accelerating Reinforcement Learning Algorithms Convergence using Pre-trained Large Language Models as Tutors With Advice Reusing

    cs.LG 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    LLM tutoring modestly accelerates RL convergence on average, with advice reuse saving wall-clock time but reducing stability.

  10. Prompt Informed Reinforcement Learning for Visual Coverage Path Planning

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Adding GPT-3.5 semantic recommendations as an auxiliary reward term to PPO improves visual coverage and reduces redundancy for simulated aerial coverage path planning, according to reported experiments.

  11. UrbanMind: Towards Urban General Intelligence via Tool-Enhanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation and Multilevel Optimization

    cs.LG 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper introduces UrbanMind, a tool-enhanced RAG framework with a multilevel optimization formulation for continual adaptation in urban AI, but offers only qualitative prototype results.

  12. Efficient Online RFT with Plug-and-Play LLM Judges: Unlocking State-of-the-Art Performance

    cs.LG 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A frozen 7B-8B LLM with a JSON rubric and a small LoRA adapter is claimed to outperform 27B-70B reward models and enable 92% GSM-8K exact match under online PPO.

  13. Reinforcement Learning Meets Large Language Models: A Survey of Advancements and Applications Across the LLM Lifecycle

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey that maps reinforcement learning methods, datasets, benchmarks, and open-source tools across the full training lifecycle of large language models, focusing on verifiable-reward reasoning.

  14. A Technical Survey of Reinforcement Learning Techniques for Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey of RL methods for LLMs that organizes the field by reward modeling, feedback source, and optimization strategy, with benchmark tables favoring a scalar-regression UNA variant over DPO and KTO in offline alignment.

  15. RACE-Align: Retrieval-Augmented and Chain-of-Thought Enhanced Preference Alignment for Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    RACE-Align generates preference pairs from RAG-grounded chain-of-thought answers and applies DPO to align a 1.7B model, showing improved reasoning scores in TCM QA but lacking statistical support.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 15 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    AI, :, Alan Wake, Albert Wang, Bei Chen, C. X. Lv, Chao Li, Chengen Huang, Chenglin Cai, Chu- jie Zheng, Daniel Cooper, Ethan Dai, Fan Zhou, Feng Hu, Heng Ji, Howard Qiu, Jiangcheng Zhu, Jun Tian, Katherine Su, Lihuan Zhang, Liying Li, Ming Song, Mou Li, Peng Liu, Qichen Hu, Shawn Wang, Shijun Zhou, Shiyong Li, Tianhang Zhu, Wen Xie, Xiang He, Xiaobo Chen...

    work page 2024

  2. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12773

    Safe rlhf: Safe reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12773. DeepSeek-AI, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, Xiaokang Zhang, Xingkai Yu, Yu Wu, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Zhuoshu Li, Ziyi Gao, Aixin Liu, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Boc...

    arXiv

  3. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300

    Measuring massive multitask language under- standing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300. Jiwoo Hong, Noah Lee, and James Thorne. 2024. Reference-free monolithic preference optimization with odds ratio. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07691. Zhenyu Hou, Yilin Niu, Zhengxiao Du, Xiaohan Zhang, Xiao Liu, Aohan Zeng, Qinkai Zheng, Minlie Huang, Hongning Wang, Jie Tan...

    arXiv 2009

  4. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13228

    Smaug: Fixing failure modes of prefer- ence optimisation with dpo-positive. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13228. Bhargavi Paranjape, Scott Lundberg, Sameer Singh, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marco Tulio Ribeiro. 2023. Art: Automatic multi- step reasoning and tool-use for large language mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09014. Junsoo Park, Seu...

    arXiv 2023

  5. [9]

    Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, 36

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, 36. David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jack- son Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Ju- lian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. 2023. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2...

    arXiv 2023

  6. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19107

    Offline regularised reinforcement learning for large language models alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19107. Corby Rosset, Ching-An Cheng, Arindam Mi- tra, Michael Santacroce, Ahmed Awadallah, and Tengyang Xie. 2024. Direct nash optimization: Teaching language models to self-improve with gen- eral preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03715. Amir Sae...

    arXiv 2024

  7. [11]

    https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID269303161

    Insights into alignment: Evaluating dpo and its variants across multiple tasks, 2024. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID269303161. John Schulman. 2015. Trust region policy optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.05477. John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proxi- mal policy optimization algorithms. arXi...

    arXiv 2024

  8. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11857

    Hermes 3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11857. Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Al- bert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fu...

    arXiv 2023

Show all 17 references
  1. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02105

    Gpt-re: In-context learning for relation ex- traction using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02105. Guan Wang, Sijie Cheng, Xianyuan Zhan, Xiangang Li, Sen Song, and Yang Liu. 2024a. Openchat: Advanc- ing open-source language models with mixed-quality data. In ...

    2023 arXiv

  2. [14]

    In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    Iterative preference learning from human feed- back: Bridging theory and practice for rlhf under kl-constraint. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning. Shusheng Xu, Wei Fu, Jiaxuan Gao, Wenjie Ye, Weilin Liu, Zhiyu Mei, Guangju Wang, Chao Yu, and Yi Wu. 20...

    arXiv

  3. [15]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36. Ziyi Ye, Xiangsheng Li, Qiuchi Li, Qingyao Ai, Yu- jia Zhou, Wei Shen, Dong Yan, and Yiqun Liu

  4. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03742

    Beyond scalar reward model: Learning gen- erative judge from preference data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03742. Weizhe Yuan, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Kyunghyun Cho, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Jing Xu, and Jason Weston

    arXiv

  5. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10020

    Self-rewarding language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10020. Zheng Yuan, Hongyi Yuan, Chuanqi Tan, Wei Wang, Songfang Huang, and Fei Huang. 2023. Rrhf: Rank responses to align language models with human feedback without tears. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05302. Xiang Yue, Yu...

    2023 arXiv

  6. [2020]

    Zheng Cai, Maosong Cao, Haojiong Chen, Kai Chen, Keyu Chen, Xin Chen, Xun Chen, Zehui Chen, Zhi Chen, Pei Chu, et al

    Language models are few-shot learners. Zheng Cai, Maosong Cao, Haojiong Chen, Kai Chen, Keyu Chen, Xin Chen, Xun Chen, Zehui Chen, Zhi Chen, Pei Chu, et al. 2024. Internlm2 technical re- port. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17297. Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anasta- ...

    2024 arXiv

  7. [2022]

    Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 35:27730–27744

    Training language models to follow instruc- tions with human feedback. Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 35:27730–27744. Arka Pal, Deep Karkhanis, Samuel Dooley, Man- ley Roberts, Siddartha Naidu, and Colin White

  8. [2023]

    In Pro- ceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing , pages 4895– 4901

    Gqa: Training generalized multi-query trans- former models from multi-head checkpoints. In Pro- ceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing , pages 4895– 4901. Dario Amodei, Chris Olah, Jacob Steinhardt, Paul Christiano, John Schulman,...

    2023 arXiv

  9. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11704

    Nemotron-4 340b technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11704. Arash Ahmadian, Chris Cremer, Matthias Gallé, Marzieh Fadaee, Julia Kreutzer, Olivier Pietquin, Ahmet Üstün, and Sara Hooker. 2024. Back to ba- sics: Revisiting reinforce style optimization for learn- ing from ...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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