Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

FedRLHF: A Convergence-Guaranteed Federated Framework for Privacy-Preserving and Personalized RLHF

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FedRLHF claims that RLHF can run fully federated—each client updates a local policy from private human feedback—and converges at rate O(1/T) up to a bias governed by client diversity and feedback strength.

desk verdict The framework is sensible and clearly described, but the main convergence proof has an invalid cross-term cancellation that leaves Theorem 4.1 unsupported; the personalization theorems also rely on unproven assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15538 v2 pith:OH6VUCO5 submitted 2024-12-20 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CR

Flint Xiaofeng Fan , Cheston Tan , Yew-Soon Ong , Roger Wattenhofer , Wei-Tsang Ooi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CR
keywords federatedreinforcementlearningRLHFprivacy-preservingmachinepersonalizationconvergenceguaranteesamplecomplexityhumanfeedbackpolicygradient
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

FedRLHF is a proposed way to run reinforcement learning with human feedback without moving users' raw data or preference labels to a server: each client shapes its own reward with local human feedback, takes several policy-gradient steps, and sends only the model update to be averaged. The paper's central claim is that this federated procedure converges to the optimal global policy at rate O(1/T), with an unavoidable bias that shrinks as the number of clients grows and is proportional to the human-feedback weight. This matters because centralized RLHF—the standard behind instruction-following systems—collects user data and feedback in one place, creating both privacy risks and a one-size-fits-all policy. If the claim holds, personalized, privacy-preserving fine-tuning is not a separate compromise but a method with the same asymptotic sample efficiency as centralized training.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a one-step descent lemma for the FedAvg trajectory $\theta_{t+1}=\theta_t+(1/K)\sum_k(\theta^k_t-\theta_t)$, where each client's local update is a sum of $\tau$ policy-gradient steps on its shaped reward $R_k=R_k^0+\lambda H_k$. Smoothness bounds the descent, the PL condition turns the gradient-norm term into a contraction, and the human-feedback bound appears as the additive $\lambda H_{\max}$ bias. The personalization analysis uses the personalization score $P_k(\theta)=\mathbb{E}_{s\sim\rho}[D_{\mathrm{KL}}(\pi_k(\cdot|s,\theta)\|\pi(\cdot|s,\theta))]$ and the performance difference lemma to convert KL divergence into a global-performance penalty.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 with two clients whose intrinsic rewards push the policy in opposite directions and measure the cross-client term $(1/K^2)\sum_{k\ne k'}\mathbb{E}\langle\theta_t^k-\theta_t,\theta_t^{k'}-\theta_t\rangle$ across rounds. If this term is not negligible, the one-step descent lemma's bound is violated and the empirical optimality gap will plateau above the bias predicted by Theorem 4.1, refuting the universal convergence claim for heterogeneous clients.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under $L$-smoothness, $G$-bounded gradients, $\sigma^2$-bounded variance, the Polyak–Łojasiewicz condition with parameter $\mu$, and $|H_k(s,a)|\le H_{\max}$, the paper proves that with learning rate $\eta=1/(L\tau)$ the averaged output $\theta_{\mathrm{avg}}$ of Algorithm 1 satisfies $$\mathbb{E}\left[J(\$\theta$^*)-J(\theta_{\mathrm{avg}})\right]\le \frac{L}{\mu T}\left(J(\$\theta$^*)-J(\theta_0)\right)+\frac{1}{2\mu K}\left($G^{2}$+\$sigma^{2}$\right)+\frac{L}{\mu}\$\lambda$ H_{\max}.$$ The proof's one-step descent lemma converts gradient norm into progress and leaves two bias terms: stochastic variance, which shrinks as $1/K$, and human-feedback influence $\lambda H_{\max}$. Theorem 4.2 translates this into total sample complexity $N=O(L(G^2+\sigma^2)/(\mu^2\epsilon^2))$, and Theorem 5.1 bounds global intrinsic performance below by average client performance minus a penalty proportional to the mean square-root KL personalization score.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of Lemma 4.2 assumes the cross-client terms in the average of local updates vanish because gradient noise has zero mean, ignoring that clients' true gradients differ, so without a gradient-dissimilarity bound the stated O(1/T) guarantee does not follow from the proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Only policy updates—never raw trajectories or preference labels—leave the client, so the framework is compatible with on-device data-governance constraints.
  • Increasing the number of clients $K$ tightens the convergence bound through the $1/K$ variance term and lowers per-client sample complexity.
  • The human-feedback weight $\lambda$ is a controllable dial: larger $\lambda$ raises the personalization score at order $\lambda^2$ while lowering global performance and raising sample complexity at order $\lambda$.
  • To reach expected optimality gap $\epsilon$, total sample complexity scales as $O(\epsilon^{-2})$ with more clients reducing the per-client burden.
  • On MovieLens and IMDb, FedRLHF matches or surpasses centralized RLHF in reward and accuracy while reported client accuracy and Spearman correlation improve over rounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The bound suggests a practical calibration rule the paper leaves implicit: choose $\lambda$ no larger than $O(\mu\epsilon/L)$ to keep the human-feedback bias within an error budget $\epsilon$.
  • The personalization score $P_k$ could be measured online and used as a stopping criterion or as a regularizer on local updates, turning Theorem 5.1's inequality into an adaptive controller.
  • Because the privacy guarantee is architectural rather than formal, composing FedRLHF with a mechanism such as differential privacy would make the stated privacy property a formal one; the paper notes this as future work.
  • Since both bias terms are independent of $T$, extra communication rounds give diminishing returns once variance and feedback bias dominate, whereas adding clients directly improves the bound—a practical consequence the paper does not spell out.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces FedRLHF, a federated RLHF framework in which clients keep raw data and human feedback local, shape rewards as R_k = R0_k + λH_k, run local policy-gradient updates, and share only model deltas with a server. The main claimed contributions are a convergence guarantee for the averaged global policy under a PL condition (Theorem 4.1), a sample-complexity bound (Theorem 4.2), and a personalization–performance trade-off analysis (Theorems 5.1 and 5.2), together with experiments on MovieLens and IMDb. The central theoretical claims are not established: the one-step descent lemma relies on an invalid cancellation of cross-client terms, the human-feedback penalty is introduced by assertion rather than derivation, and the impact-of-human-feedback theorem analyzes an update rule that is not Algorithm 1.

Significance. The high-level direction — combining federated averaging with locally shaped RLHF rewards — is timely, and the authors make a good-faith effort to provide guarantees rather than only heuristics. The paper ships code and experiments on two datasets, and the attempt to quantify a personalization cost is conceptually interesting. However, the value of the paper rests on the rigor of the convergence and trade-off proofs, and those proofs contain load-bearing gaps. Because the convergence theorem is the paper's primary theoretical contribution, the current manuscript does not support the advertised guarantees.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Lemma A.2 (also Theorem 4.1)] The proof bounds E||(1/K)Σ_k(θ^k_t−θ_t)||² by (1/K)E||θ^k_t−θ_t||², saying that under independence across clients and zero-mean stochastic gradients 'the cross terms vanish'. The stochastic noise has zero mean, but the true gradients do not: the cross term equals η² Σ_{i,j}⟨∇J_k(θ^k_{t,i}), ∇J_{k'}(θ^{k'}_{t,j})⟩ plus a noise part that does vanish, and this term is not bounded by any assumption. For the homogeneous example with K clients, σ²=0 and ∇J_k≡g for all k, the actual value of the squared-average term is η²τ²∥g∥², while the proof claims (η²τ²/K)(∥g∥²+σ²), which is a factor K smaller. Thus Lemma 4.2 is false as stated under Assumptions 1–6, and the contraction argument in Theorem B.1 has no basis.
  2. [Appendix A, Lemma A.2 ('Accounting for human feedback')] The final line of the proof subtracts the term −λHmax from the lower bound with the sentence 'we subtract this term from our lower bound'; this is an assertion, not a derivation. Since the local objectives J_k already include the shaped reward R_k=R0_k+λH_k, the global objective J already contains the human-feedback contribution, and Assumption 6 only bounds |H_k| pointwise. No step in the proof connects the bounded feedback to a worst-case loss of λHmax in the descent inequality. Moreover, the earlier simplification step drops the η³τ³ term as 'higher order' without conditions, even though the later choice η=1/(Lτ) gives η³τ³=1/(L³τ²), which is not automatically negligible.
  3. [Appendix C, Theorem C.2] The proof of the O(λ²) personalization scaling assumes a policy update rule θ'_k = θ_k + ηλ∇_θ H_k(θ_k). No such update appears in Algorithm 1; the algorithm updates local parameters with policy-gradient estimates of J_k, where the shaped reward enters through R_k, not as a separate H_k gradient. The proof also introduces a new constant G_H without defining it from Assumptions 1–6. The final sample-complexity claim 'N = O(L(G²+σ²)/(μ²ε²) + LKλHmax/(με))' is not the expression derived in Theorem B.2, which contains no λ-dependent additive term. Consequently the O(λ²), O(λ), and O(λ) rates in Theorem 5.2 are unsupported.
  4. [Appendix C, Theorem C.1] The proof uses the assertion D∞(d^{π_k}_k∥ρ) ≤ log 2 to replace the state distribution d^{π_k}_k by ρ in the personalization score, which is needed to obtain the constant C. This inequality is not derived from Assumptions 1–6, the reward shaping, or the FedRLHF update; the text says only that the authors 'can assert' it. The bound is not a standard property of federated averaging, and without a proof of this divergence bound, the personalization–performance trade-off theorem does not follow.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] Theorem 4.1 is described as a 'linear convergence rate', but the statement is an O(1/T) bound on the average gap; the per-round contraction ρ=1−μ/L applies only to the homogeneous part of the bound. The wording should distinguish geometric contraction of the initial-condition term from the O(1/T) average.
  2. [Appendix A, Lemma A.2] The descent coefficient is written as 1−Lη/2 in one displayed equation and later as 1−Lητ/2; the two forms are not equivalent and the proof should be consistent.
  3. [Section 6.1.3] The experimental section uses Q-learning for the MovieLens task while the theory explicitly assumes policy-gradient local updates; this limits the extent to which the experiments validate Theorem 4.1 and should be stated more prominently as a limitation.
  4. [Abstract and Section 3.3] The abstract and introduction claim 'robust privacy preservation', but the protocol shares model updates without formal privacy guarantees; the text correctly notes that differential privacy could be added, so the claims should be qualified accordingly.
  5. [Appendix D.2.4] The IMDb experiments are reported with a single random seed while the MovieLens experiments use five seeds; this asymmetry should be acknowledged in the main text.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Central personalization and human-feedback terms are inserted by construction; the O(1/K) convergence term is obtained by assuming client cross-gradients vanish, and Theorem 5.2 postulates a lambda-scaled update rule that is not Algorithm 1.

  1. self definitional [Appendix A, proof of Lemma A.2 (Lemma 4.2), 'Bounding the Second Term']
    "Assuming independence across clients and zero-mean stochastic gradients, the cross terms vanish, and we have: E[ || (1/K) sum_k (theta_k^t - theta_t) ||^2 ] <= 1/K E[ || theta_k^t - theta_t ||^2 ]."

    The proof decomposes gradient_hat_J_k = gradient_J_k + delta_k with E[delta_k] = 0, so only the noise cross terms vanish; the cross terms E<gradient_J_k, gradient_J_k'> are nonzero when client objectives are heterogeneous. Dropping them assumes away exactly the heterogeneity that the theorem's O(1/K) term claims to capture. The O(1/K) variance reduction in Theorem 4.1 is therefore forced by the vanishing-cross-term premise, not derived from Assumptions 1-6.

  2. self definitional [Appendix A, end of proof of Lemma A.2 (Lemma 4.2), 'Accounting for human feedback']
    "Accounting for human feedback: Since human feedback H_k(s,a) is bounded by H_max (as per Assumption 6), the aggregated impact of human feedback across all clients introduces a worst-case adjustment of lambda H_max to the global objective. We subtract this term from our lower bound."

    No step in the proof derives this term from the shaped reward R_k = R0_k + lambda H_k or from the policy-gradient estimator. The lemma simply subtracts lambda H_max, and Theorem 4.1 then reports (L/mu) lambda H_max as the 'Influence of Human Feedback' bias. The claimed cost of personalization is an inserted assumption, not a consequence of the algorithm dynamics.

2 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Appendix C, proof of Theorem C.2 (Theorem 5.2), 'Effect on Personalization Score']
    "Assume that the policy update rule for client k is given by: theta'_k = theta_k + eta lambda gradient_theta H_k(theta_k) ... the dominant term is (eta lambda G_H)^2 ... P_k(theta'_k) <= L (eta lambda G_H)^2. Therefore, the personalization score scales as: P_k(theta'_k) = O(lambda^2)."

    Algorithm 1's local update is theta^k_{t,i+1} = theta^k_{t,i} + eta * g-hat^k_{t,i}, an unbiased estimator of gradient J_k. Theorem 5.2 instead postulates a noise-free, non-aggregated update theta'_k = theta_k + eta lambda gradient H_k; since the personalization score P_k is defined as KL(pi_k || pi) and the proof bounds it by L/2 ||theta'_k - theta||^2, the O(lambda^2) growth is just the assumption that the client shifts by lambda. The theorem's headline trade-off is thus built into the postulated update rule.

  2. self definitional [Appendix C, proof of Theorem C.2 (Theorem 5.2), 'Effect on Sample Complexity']
    "Here, the term L K lambda H_max / (mu epsilon) in the sample complexity indicates that N scales linearly with lambda: N = O( L(G^2 + sigma^2)/(mu^2 epsilon^2) + L K lambda H_max / (mu epsilon) ) ... Assuming that lambda directly influences the second term, the overall sample complexity N increases at a rate of O(lambda)."

    Theorem 4.2's sample complexity is N = O(L(G^2 + sigma^2)/(mu^2 epsilon^2)) with only a constraint lambda H_max <= O(mu epsilon / L); it contains no L K lambda H_max / (mu epsilon) term. The proof inserts that term by hand and then 'finds' N = O(lambda). This is a fitted and relabeled input presented as a theorem consequence.

full rationale

Most of the non-asymptotic machinery (L-smoothness, PL condition, unrolled recursion) is standard and externally checkable, so the paper is not wholly circular. However, four load-bearing reductions are by construction. Lemma A.2 obtains the O(1/K) variance term by asserting that client-to-client cross terms vanish; since only the noise delta_k is zero-mean, this is equivalent to assuming away gradient heterogeneity. The same lemma introduces the lambda H_max term by flat, and Theorem 4.1 then reports it as the price of human feedback. Section 5 is worse: Theorem 5.2 postulates theta'_k = theta_k + eta lambda gradient H_k, which is not Algorithm 1, so P_k = O(lambda^2) and J_g = O(lambda) are the postulated update restated in KL coordinates; its N = O(lambda) inserts a lambda term into a sample-complexity formula that does not contain one. These are not imperfect approximations but assumed conclusions. Self-citations are not load-bearing here; the circularity is internal to the proofs. Score 7 reflects substantial but not total circularity, because the smoothness/PL recursion core has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theoretical claims rest on standard smoothness/bounded-variance/PL assumptions, plus several ad hoc assumptions introduced during proofs: vanishing cross-client terms, a bounded state-distribution ratio D∞ ≤ log 2, and a policy update rule that does not match Algorithm 1. The only hand-picked parameter is λ, which controls reward shaping and the claimed trade-off.

free parameters (1)
  • personalization weight λ = chosen by hand: λ_k ∈ {0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9} in IMDb experiments; free constant in theory
    Scales human feedback in R_k = R0_k + λH_k; the claimed trade-off rates O(λ) and O(λ²) are stated in terms of λ, and per-client values are hand-assigned to illustrate the trade-off.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Cross-client local update cross terms vanish in expectation
    Used in Lemma A.2 proof to bound the average squared local-global difference; not true for non-centered true gradients, and no heterogeneity bound is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper D∞(d^{π_k}_k || ρ) ≤ log 2
    Assumed in Appendix C proof of Theorem 5.1 to relate state-distribution expectations to the personalization score P_k; not listed among Assumptions 1-6.
  • ad hoc to paper Policy update rule θ'_k = θ_k + ηλ∇θ H_k
    Assumed in Theorem 5.2 proof; does not match Algorithm 1, which uses generic local RL updates and FedAvg aggregation.
  • domain assumption Polyak-Łojasiewicz (PL) condition
    Assumption 5; strong for RL objectives, though used by prior works. The paper notes it is stronger than typical non-convex RL settings.
  • standard math Smoothness, bounded gradients, bounded variance (Assumptions 1-4)
    Standard stochastic optimization assumptions used throughout the convergence analysis.
  • domain assumption Bounded human feedback |H_k| ≤ H_max
    Assumption 6; used to justify the inserted λHmax term in the descent lemma.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FedRLHF: A Convergence-Guaranteed Federated Framework for Privacy-Preserving and Personalized RLHF." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OH6VUCO5

@misc{pith2026241215538,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FedRLHF: A Convergence-Guaranteed Federated Framework for Privacy-Preserving and Personalized RLHF},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OH6VUCO5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15538}
}
read the original abstract

In the era of increasing privacy concerns and demand for personalized experiences, traditional Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) frameworks face significant challenges due to their reliance on centralized data. We introduce Federated Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (FedRLHF), a novel framework that decentralizes the RLHF process. FedRLHF enables collaborative policy learning across multiple clients without necessitating the sharing of raw data or human feedback, thereby ensuring robust privacy preservation. Leveraging federated reinforcement learning, each client integrates human feedback locally into their reward functions and updates their policies through personalized RLHF processes. We establish rigorous theoretical foundations for FedRLHF, providing convergence guarantees, and deriving sample complexity bounds that scale efficiently with the number of clients. Empirical evaluations on the MovieLens and IMDb datasets demonstrate that FedRLHF not only preserves user privacy but also achieves performance on par with centralized RLHF, while enhancing personalization across diverse client environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15538 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the FedRLHF framework to con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Learning curves on MovieLens: (top) Global vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Trends of intrinsic rewards, sentiment rewards, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance evaluation of FedRLHF in comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Learning curves for the MovieLens task: (a) Global vs. Client Accuracy, (b) Client Spearman Rank Correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of client accuracies and Spearman rank correlations per round for the MovieLens task with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Learning curves on MovieLens: (top) Global vs. Client Accuracy, (bottom) Client Spearman correlation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of client accuracies and Spearman rank correlations per round for the MovieLens task with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Global and client-specific performance over communication rounds in the IMDb task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of Average Rewards and Losses between Centralized RLHF and FedRLHF ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Trends of intrinsic rewards, sentiment rewards, and combined rewards over communication rounds for each client [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. FedHPD: Heterogeneous Federated Reinforcement Learning via Policy Distillation

    cs.LG 2025-02 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Heterogeneous federated RL agents can share knowledge through periodic distillation of action distributions toward a global average, though the paper's theoretical guarantees are not sound.

  2. Context Engineering: A Practitioner Methodology for Structured Human-AI Collaboration

    cs.AI 2026-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Structured five-role context packages and a four-phase pipeline were associated with cutting average AI task iterations from 3.8 to 2.0 and raising first-pass acceptance from 32% to 55% in an observational single-oper...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Daniel J Beutel, Taner Topal, Akhil Mathur, Xinchi Qiu, Titouan Parcollet, and Nicholas D Lane. 2020. Flower: A friendly federated learning research framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.14390 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Jalaj Bhandari and Daniel Russo. 2024. Global optimality guarantees for policy gradient methods. Operations Research (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom B Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 30

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Nathan Corecco, Giorgio Piatti, Luca A Lanzendörfer, Flint Xiaofeng Fan, and Roger Wattenhofer. 2024. An LLM-based Recommender System Environment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01631 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Zhongxiang Dai, Flint Xiaofeng Fan, Cheston Tan, Trong Nghia Hoang, Bryan Kian Hsiang Low, and Patrick Jaillet. 2024. Federated sequential decision making: Bayesian optimization, reinforcement learning, and beyond. InFederated Learning. Elsevier, 257–279

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Zhongxiang Dai, Yao Shu, Arun Verma, Flint Xiaofeng Fan, Bryan Kian Hsiang Low, and Patrick Jaillet. 2023. Federated Neural Bandits. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam Smith. 2006. Cali- brating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In Theory of cryptography conference. Springer, 265–284

    2006

  8. [8]

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). https://eur-le...

    work page 2016

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Flint Xiaofeng Fan, Yining Ma, Zhongxiang Dai, Wei Jing, Cheston Tan, and Bryan Kian Hsiang Low. 2021. Fault-Tolerant Federated Reinforcement Learning with Theoretical Guarantee. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 1007–1021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Flint Xiaofeng Fan, Yining Ma, Zhongxiang Dai, Cheston Tan, Bryan Kian Hsiang Low, and Roger Wattenhofer. 2023. Fedhql: Federated heterogeneous q-learning . arXiv:2301.11135

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Flint Xiaofeng Fan, Cheston Tan, Yew-Soon Ong, Roger Wattenhofer, and Wei- Tsang Ooi. 2024. FedRLHF: A Convergence-Guaranteed Federated Framework for Privacy-Preserving and Personalized RLHF. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15538 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15538

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Koki Fujita, Shugo Fujimura, Yuwei Sun, Hiroshi Esaki, and Hideya Ochiai. 2022. Federated Reinforcement Learning for the Building Facilities. In 2022 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Omni-layer Intelligent Systems (COINS) . 1–6

    2022

  5. [13]

    F Maxwell Harper and Joseph A Konstan. 2015. The MovieLens datasets: History and context. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 5, 4 (2015), 1–19

    2015

  6. [14]

    Wenzheng Jiang, Ji Wang, Xiongtao Zhang, Weidong Bao, Cheston Tan, and Flint Xiaofeng Fan. 2025. FedHPD: Heterogeneous Federated Reinforcement Learning via Policy Distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00870 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Philip Jordan, Florian Grötschla, Flint Xiaofeng Fan, and Roger Wattenhofer. 2024. Decentralized Federated Policy Gradient with Byzantine Fault-Tolerance and Provably Fast Convergence. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

    2024

  8. [16]

    Hamed Karimi, Julie Nutini, and Mark Schmidt. 2016. Linear convergence of gradient and proximal-gradient methods under the polyak-łojasiewicz condition. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2016, Riva del Garda, Italy, Septem...

    2016

  9. [17]

    Sajad Khodadadian, Pranay Sharma, Gauri Joshi, and Siva Theja Maguluri. 2022. Federated Reinforcement Learning: Linear Speedup Under Markovian Sampling. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion. arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Tian Li, Anit Kumar Sahu, Ameet Talwalkar, and Virginia Smith. 2020. Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions. IEEE signal processing magazine 37, 3 (2020), 50–60

    2020

  12. [20]

    Xinyu Li, Zachary C Lipton, and Liu Leqi. 2024. Personalized language modeling from personalized human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05133 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Boyi Liu, Lujia Wang, and Ming Liu. 2019. Lifelong federated reinforcement learning: a learning architecture for navigation in cloud robotic systems. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 4, 4 (2019), 4555–4562

    2019

  14. [22]

    Andrew L Maas, Raymond E Daly, Peter T Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning Word Vectors for Sentiment Analysis. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 142–150

    2011

  15. [23]

    Hei Yi Mak, Flint Xiaofeng Fan, Luca A Lanzendörfer, Cheston Tan, Wei Tsang Ooi, and Roger Wattenhofer. 2024. CAESAR: Enhancing Federated RL in Het- erogeneous MDPs through Convergence-Aware Sampling with Screening. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Workshop on Adaptive and Lear...

    2024

  16. [24]

    H Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep net- works from decentralized data. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics . PMLR, 1273–1282

    2017

  17. [25]

    OpenAI. 2023. ChatGPT. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt

    2023

  18. [26]

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2022

  19. [27]

    Matteo Papini, Damiano Binaghi, Giuseppe Canonaco, Matteo Pirotta, and Mar- cello Restelli. 2018. Stochastic variance-reduced policy gradient. In International conference on machine learning . 4026–4035

    2018

  20. [28]

    Chanwoo Park, Mingyang Liu, Kaiqing Zhang, and Asuman Ozdaglar. 2024. Principled rlhf from heterogeneous feedback via personalization and preference aggregation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00254 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Jing Qiao, Zuyuan Zhang, Sheng Yue, Yuan Yuan, Zhipeng Cai, Xiao Zhang, Ju Ren, and Dongxiao Yu. 2024. BR-DeFedRL: Byzantine-Robust Decentralized Federated Reinforcement Learning with Fast Convergence and Communication Efficiency. InIEEE INFOCOM 2024 - IEEE Conference on Compu...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog 1, 8 (2019), 9

    2019

  23. [31]

    Shyam Sundhar Ramesh, Yifan Hu, Iason Chaimalas, Viraj Mehta, Pier Giuseppe Sessa, Haitham Bou Ammar, and Ilija Bogunovic. 2024. Group Robust Preference Optimization in Reward-free RLHF. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20304 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    V Sanh. 2019. DistilBERT, A Distilled Version of BERT: Smaller, Faster, Cheaper and Lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    John Schulman, Sergey Levine, Pieter Abbeel, Michael Jordan, and Philipp Moritz

  26. [34]

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov

  27. [35]

    Reza Shokri and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2015. Privacy-preserving deep learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 1310–1321

    2015

  28. [36]

    Virginia Smith, Dmitriy Smola, and Ameet Talwalkar. 2017. Federated multi-task learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 30

    2017

  29. [37]

    Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel M Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul Christiano. 2020. Learning to sum- marize with human feedback. In NeurIPS, Vol. 33. 3008–3021

    2020

  30. [38]

    United States Congress. 1996. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/index.html

    1996

  31. [39]

    Leandro von Werra, Younes Belkada, Lewis Tunstall, Edward Beeching, Tristan Thrush, Nathan Lambert, Shengyi Huang, Kashif Rasul, and Quentin Gallouédec

  32. [40]

    Han Wang, Sihong He, Zhili Zhang, Fei Miao, and James Anderson. 2024. Mo- mentum for the Win: Collaborative Federated Reinforcement Learning across Heterogeneous Environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19499 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Xiaofei Wang, Chenyang Wang, Xiuhua Li, Victor CM Leung, and Tarik Taleb

  34. [42]

    Christopher John Cornish Hellaby Watkins. 1989. Learning from delayed rewards. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge England

    1989

  35. [43]

    Ronald J Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Machine learning 8, 3-4 (1992), 229–256

    1992

  36. [44]

    Jiin Woo, Gauri Joshi, and Yuejie Chi. 2023. The Blessing of Heterogeneity in Federated Q-Learning: Linear Speedup and Beyond. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning

    2023

  37. [45]

    IEEE IoT-J 7, 10 (2020), 9441–9455

    Federated deep reinforcement learning for Internet of Things with decen- tralized cooperative edge caching. IEEE IoT-J 7, 10 (2020), 9441–9455

    2020

  38. [46]

    Dong Yin, Yudong Chen, Kannan Ramchandran, and Peter Bartlett. 2018. Byzantine-robust distributed learning: Towards optimal statistical rates . arXiv:1803.01498

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Shuai Yu, Xu Chen, Zhi Zhou, Xiaowen Gong, and Di Wu. 2020. When deep reinforcement learning meets federated learning: Intelligent multi-timescale resource management for multi-access edge computing in 5G ultra dense network. IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Rui Yuan, Robert M Gower, and Alessandro Lazaric. 2022. A general sample complexity analysis of vanilla policy gradient. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 3332–3380

    2022

  41. [49]

    Jiin Woo, Laixi Shi, Gauri Joshi, and Yuejie Chi. 2024. Federated offline rein- forcement learning: Collaborative single-policy coverage suffices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05876 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    James Zou, Yu Lu, Balakrishnan Narayanaswamy, and Devi Parikh Agarwal. 2019. Reinforcement learning to optimize long-term user engagement in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD KDD . 2810–2818. A PROOFS OF USEFUL LEMMAS Lemma A.1 (Restatement of Lemma 4....

    2019

  43. [53]

    Daniel M Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Jeffrey Wu, Tom B Brown, Alec Radford, and Dario Amodei. 2019. Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08593 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  44. [55]

    Communication Rounds𝑇 : 𝐿 𝜇𝑇 𝐽(𝜃∗)− 𝐽(𝜃0) ≤ 𝜖 3 =⇒ 𝑇≥ 3𝐿(𝐽(𝜃∗)− 𝐽(𝜃0)) 𝜇𝜖

  45. [56]

    Number of Clients𝐾: 1 2𝜇𝐾(𝐺 2+𝜎2)≤ 𝜖 3 =⇒ 𝐾≥ 3(𝐺 2+𝜎2) 2𝜇𝜖

  46. [57]

    too high,

    Human Feedback Term𝜆𝐻max: 𝐿 𝜇𝜆𝐻max≤ 𝜖 3 =⇒ 𝜆𝐻max≤ 𝜇𝜖 3𝐿. This constraint ensures that the influence of human feedback remains controlled and does not detrimentally affect the convergence guarantees. Step 3: Calculating Total Number of Samples 𝑁 The total number of samples acro...

    2000

  47. [2015]

    Trust region policy optimization. In ICML. 1889–1897

  48. [2017]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  49. [2020]

    TRL: Transformer Reinforcement Learning

Pith tools

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