Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Temporal Self-Rewarding Language Models: Decoupling Chosen-Rejected via Past-Future

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that self-rewarding LLMs fail because chosen and rejected responses converge, and that anchoring rejections to the original model while choosing responses from a temporary future model preserves the learning signal and deli

desk verdict Anchored rejection is a useful empirical trick, but the equal-compute claim and the theory appendix both need fixing before I'd trust the headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06026 v1 pith:ZJHCQDSO submitted 2025-08-08 cs.CL cs.AI

Yidong Wang , Xin Wang , Cunxiang Wang , Junfeng Fang , Qiufeng Wang , Jianing Chu , Xuran Meng , Shuxun Yang
show 4 more authors
Libo Qin Yue Zhang Wei Ye Shikun Zhang
This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords temporalself-rewardingdirectpreferenceoptimizationLLM-as-a-judgelearningself-improvementiterativealignmentresponsediversitychosen-rejecteddecoupling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that iterative Self-Rewarding, where a language model scores its own responses and trains on the best versus the worst via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), deteriorates because the chosen and rejected responses become progressively similar, shrinking the representational gap that preference learning needs. As the model improves, both its good and bad outputs get better, so the score gap between them shrinks roughly ninefold and the DPO gradient vanishes. To keep the signal alive, Temporal Self-Rewarding anchors rejected responses to the frozen initial SFT model and draws chosen responses from a temporary 'future' model trained one DPO step ahead. The authors report large consistent gains, such as Llama3.1-8B reaching a 29.44% AlpacaEval 2.0 win rate versus 19.69% for Self-Rewarding, using two iterations instead of four, with improvements across model families, sizes, and out-of-distribution tasks.

What carries the argument

Temporal decoupling of chosen and rejected responses: rejected responses are anchored to the past (the frozen initial SFT model M0), and chosen responses are guided by the future (a temporary model Mf obtained by one DPO step from Mi on anchored pairs). The load-bearing mathematical object is Theorem 1's bound, which ties the DPO directional gradient to the representation distance between chosen and rejected responses and identifies vanishing distance as the failure mode.

What would settle it

Measure actual GPU-hours or FLOPs for two Temporal SR iterations versus four Self-Rewarding iterations on the same model and data; if Temporal SR's AlpacaEval margin over Self-Rewarding disappears once the future model's training and extra generation are counted, the computational-parity claim is false. Alternatively, compare Temporal SR-2 against Self-Rewarding-2 with identical DPO update counts: if the advantage does not persist without the extra compute, the central claim is not about temporal decoupling alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the collapse of Self-Rewarding is a representational convergence problem, not a judging problem. Theorem 1 bounds the norm of the DPO directional gradient by a constant times the distance between the latent representations of chosen and rejected responses; when those representations converge, the gradient goes to zero even if the strings differ. The cure is temporal decoupling of the preference pair: Anchored Rejection fixes the negative sample as the lowest-scoring response from M0, the past/initial model, so negatives cannot inflate in quality; Future-Guided Chosen first trains a temporary model Mf = DPO(Mi, D1) on those anchored pairs, then uses Mf's high

Load-bearing premise

The claimed advantage rests on comparing two Temporal Self-Rewarding iterations against four standard Self-Rewarding iterations; the paper assumes those cost the same, even though each Temporal iteration also trains a temporary future model and draws extra responses, and if the real compute is not equal, the headline margin is not a fair comparison.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, self-rewarding training should be redesigned around pair decoupling: negatives that stay weak and positives that are ahead of the current policy.
  • Judge-only improvements to self-rewarding will hit a ceiling, because the limiting factor is the shrinking chosen-rejected gap, not evaluator accuracy.
  • Fewer optimization iterations can yield better results: Temporal SR peaks at 2 iterations where Self-Rewarding needs 4, so alignment could be cheaper when negative samples are anchored.
  • The reported out-of-distribution gains on GSM8K, ARC, TruthfulQA, and HumanEval suggest the decoupling mechanism improves general capability, not just instruction-following style.
  • The finding generalizes across model families and sizes, implying the mechanism is tied to the iterative DPO setup itself, not to a particular architecture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same past-future decoupling could apply to other iterative preference losses (e.g., IPO, KTO, ORPO), since the diagnosed failure is about pair similarity rather than DPO's specific form.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's Figure 1 suggests a simple production check, tracking chosen-rejected representation distance or score gap during any self-improvement run; when it falls sharply, stop iterating or re-anchor negatives.
  • Editorial inference: anchoring negatives to M0 turns each iteration's preference data into a kind of curriculum against a fixed weaker policy, which may explain the out-of-distribution gains; the paper does not test this explanation.
  • Testable extension, not in the paper: compare Temporal SR with two iterations against Self-Rewarding with two iterations under matched wall-clock time and matched number of DPO gradient updates, to separate the temporal mechanism's benefit from the extra compute spent training Mf.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. Temporal Self-Rewarding (TSR) proposes a two-phase modification to iterative Self-Rewarding LMs: in Phase 1, rejected responses are anchored to the initial SFT model M0, and a temporary future model Mf is trained by DPO on the resulting pairs; in Phase 2, chosen responses are selected from Mf (or Mi) and paired with the anchored rejected responses for another DPO update. The paper motivates this with a theoretical claim that DPO's directional gradient vanishes as chosen and rejected representations converge, and reports experiments on Llama, Qwen, and Mistral showing TSR outperforms standard SR on AlpacaEval 2.0, Arena-Hard, MT-Bench, and OOD NLP benchmarks, under an asserted equal-compute comparison (2 TSR iterations vs 4 SR iterations).

Significance. If the results hold under properly matched compute, the anchored-rejection idea is a simple and potentially useful contribution to self-improving alignment. The empirical gains are consistent across model families, model sizes, and external benchmarks, which is a clear strength. The paper also provides a useful ablation separating past and future components. However, the equal-compute claim and the theoretical proof are currently not sound, and the component analysis suggests the headline method's marginal benefit over its cheapest ablation is small. The contribution is promising but overstated in its present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [§1 Introduction; Algorithm 1] The headline claim that TSR and SR consume 'the same computation resources' is not supported. In each TSR iteration, Algorithm 1 performs two DPO trainings (lines 13 and 21) and generates/scores responses from Mi, M0, and Mf (lines 8 and 16). Standard SR performs one DPO training and one model's generation per iteration. Comparing 2 TSR iterations with 4 SR iterations therefore matches the number of DPO updates (4 vs 4) but not total compute: TSR performs 6K response generations/scorings vs SR's 4K, plus the cost of training and evaluating Mf. The paper's 'half the training iterations' justification counts only DPO runs and ignores the extra inference and optimizer work. A matched-compute comparison, or a clear statement that TSR deliberately uses more compute in exchange for better performance, is required before the main claim can be accepted. Additionally, Tables 1–3 select the best i
  2. [§2 Theoretical Analysis; Appendix B] The proof of Theorem 1 is not mathematically valid. It assumes a bijection h: Y → R^d between strings and continuous vectors, but no such bijection exists (the cardinalities differ), and the change-of-variables formula π_yθ(y|x) = π_hθ(h(y)|x)·|∂h(y)/∂y| does not apply to discrete sequence probabilities. Moreover, ∇θ log π_yθ(y|x) and ∇θ log π_hθ(h|x) are not equal; the log-likelihood of a generated string is a marginal over internal latent variables, not the log-density of one latent point. Consequently Eq. (3) and the bound do not establish that DPO directional guidance vanishes with representation similarity. Since the paper motivates the entire framework from this 'theoretical analysis,' this is a load-bearing issue; the theorem should be either proved under well-defined assumptions or removed/reframed as a heuristic argument.
  3. [§5 Ablation Studies, Table 2] Table 2 shows that the 'Temporal SR w/o Future' variant—which uses only Anchored Rejection and no Mf—already attains most of the gain (e.g., AlpacaEval win rate 29.06 at iter3 vs 29.44 for full TSR at iter1; Arena-Hard 13.4 vs 14.6). This suggests the future-guided chosen component contributes little, while adding a full extra DPO training and K additional generations/scorings per iteration. The paper should analyze this disparity, and the claimed importance of 'Future-Guided Chosen' should be tempered. Note also that even the w/o Future variant uses 2K generations/scorings per iteration versus SR's K, so compute accounting across all variants needs to be explicit.
  4. [§2 Methodology, Algorithm 1 lines 11/19; Figure 1] The maintained score gap in Figure 1 is at least in part a construction artifact: D1 and D2 only accept pairs where schosen > srejected (lines 11 and 19), and chosen/rejected are defined as the model's own extrema. Because TSR anchors rejected responses to the weaker M0 and selects chosen responses from Mi or Mf using Mi's scores, a positive score gap is guaranteed by the data-selection filter. This does not by itself invalidate the external-benchmark results, but the paper should not present the sustained gap as an independent validation of the method. Reporting the distribution of GPT-4o-mini scores on the raw, unfiltered candidate pools would clarify.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract/Introduction] Typo: 'we adopts' should be 'we adopt'; also 'Temporal SelfRewarding' appears without a space in several places.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The symbol Q is used both for the prompt set and for the number of queries per prompt set (Q = 5k). This is confusing; please rename one of them.
  3. [Experiments] The text says 'we limit our optimization to three iterations' but the experiments report '2 vs. 4' iterations. Reconcile this inconsistency.
  4. [Table 3] The table header says 'Llama3B' but the text refers to Llama3.2-3B; please unify the naming.
  5. [Out-of-distribution Analysis] Typo: 'can also been vitnessed' should be 'can also be witnessed'.
  6. [Appendix B] The word 'Inference' is used where 'Interpretation' or 'Implication' seems intended. Please adjust.
  7. [Main text] There is a dangling placeholder: 'Additional ablation studies in Section further analyze...' should cite the specific section.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No core circularity: external benchmarks anchor the main claim; one internal diagnostic ('maintained score gap') is partially by construction.

  1. self definitional [Algorithm 1 lines 11 and 19; Figure 1 caption; Section 'Iterative Optimization Process']
    "If schosen > srejected, add (chosen, rejected) to D1 ... If schosen > srejected, add (chosen, rejected) to D2 ... We track: (1) the score difference (chosen - rejected) evaluated by GPT-4o-mini ... Our Temporal approach effectively mitigates this quality convergence."

    The paper's internal validation of its theory (Fig. 1) uses the chosen-rejected score gap as evidence that Temporal SR 'mitigates quality convergence.' But the algorithm constructs preference data with exactly that property: D1 and D2 are only filled when Mi's score for the chosen response strictly exceeds the rejected response, and the rejected response is anchored to the weaker initial model M0. Hence the positive maintained gap is an inclusion condition of the dataset, not an emergent outcome of the training. The gap measured by GPT-4o-mini is on the same selected pairs, so it is partly a restatement of the data construction. This does not compromise the headline benchmark results, which are external AlpacaEval/Arena-Hard/MT-Bench and OOD evaluations, so the circularity is confined to a

full rationale

The core claim—TSR outperforms SR on AlpacaEval 2.0, Arena-Hard, MT-Bench, and OOD tasks—is verified on external benchmarks that are not used to construct the DPO pairs, so the main result is not an artifact of the training signal. Theorem 1 is a self-contained mathematical bound (mean-value theorem/continuity) and does not depend on the method's outcome. The only circular flavor is the Fig. 1 'score gap' diagnostic, which is largely enforced by the pair-filtering rule; I weight it at score 2. The equal-compute assertion is a fairness/cost assumption (TSR runs two DPO trainings and three-model generation/scoring per iteration vs one each for SR), but it is a comparison-design concern, not a circular derivation. Self-citations (e.g., Wang et al. 2024a) are contextual and not load-bearing; the limitations section discloses the dependence on SR making progress. The ablation 'w/o Future' shows much of the gain comes from anchoring rejection, which weakens the 'Future-Guided Chosen' causal story but is again a contribution/attribution issue rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on a small set of hand-chosen parameters (K, iteration count, data sizes) and on several assumptions about representation geometry and model improvement that are not proven. The most load-bearing is the assumption of equal compute, which is not actually met in the algorithm as described.

free parameters (5)
  • K (candidate responses per prompt) = 7
    Number of generations per prompt for Mi, M0, and Mf; chosen by hand and central to the min/max selection of preference pairs.
  • Iteration budget = 2 (TSR) vs 4 (SR)
    Paper claims equal compute via half iterations, but this is confounded by extra Mf training; comparison depends on this choice.
  • Prompt set size Q = 5000 queries per iteration
    Data budget per iteration, chosen to match prior Self-Rewarding; affects statistical power.
  • DPO beta = 0.1
    Standard DPO temperature; chosen from prior practice, not tuned in the paper.
  • Valid pair filter = schosen > srejected
    Pairs are kept only if the self-judge gives a higher score to chosen; this filter shapes the training distribution.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Semantically similar responses map to nearby points in representation space
    Invoked in Appendix B proof of Theorem 1; not proven for autoregressive LLMs.
  • ad hoc to paper There exists a bijection h: Y -> R^d between strings and continuous vectors
    Used for change of variables in gradient bound; impossible as stated because the set of finite strings is countable while R^d is uncountable.
  • domain assumption Initial SFT model M0 is weaker than iteratively trained models and provides stably low-quality rejected responses
    Foundation of Anchored Rejection; plausible but not guaranteed across all prompts.
  • domain assumption Self-Rewarding training produces at least marginal model improvement
    Authors state in Limitations that the method becomes inoperative if SR completely fails to improve the model.
  • ad hoc to paper The temporary future model Mf trained via DPO on D1 represents next-generation capability
    Core of Future-Guided Chosen; assumes one DPO step on anchored pairs yields a better generator, which is the very phenomenon the paper aims to study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Temporal Self-Rewarding Language Models: Decoupling Chosen-Rejected via Past-Future." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZJHCQDSO

@misc{pith2026250806026,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Temporal Self-Rewarding Language Models: Decoupling Chosen-Rejected via Past-Future},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZJHCQDSO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06026}
}
read the original abstract

Self-Rewarding Language Models propose an architecture in which the Large Language Models(LLMs) both generates responses and evaluates its own outputs via LLM-as-a-Judge prompting, dynamically improving its generative capabilities through iterative Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). However, our analysis reveals a critical limitation in existing Self-Rewarding paradigms: the synchronized improvement of chosen and rejected responses progressively narrows the representational difference between contrasting samples, undermining effective preference learning. We propose \textbf{Temporal Self-Rewarding Language Models} that strategically coordinate past, present, and future model generations to sustain learning signals. Our dual-phase framework introduces: (1) \textit{Anchored Rejection} - fixing rejected responses using the past initial model's outputs and (2) \textit{Future-Guided Chosen} - dynamically curating chosen samples using next-generation model predictions. Extensive experiments across three model families (Llama, Qwen, Mistral) and different model sizes (Llama3B/8B/70B) demonstrate significant improvements when trained with our method compared to Self-Rewarding using same computation resources. For example, Llama3.1-8B reaches a 29.44 win rate on AlpacaEval 2.0 with our method, outperforming the Self-Rewarding baseline (19.69) by 9.75. Notably, our method also demonstrates superior out-of-distribution generalization across mathematical reasoning (GSM8K), knowledge-based QA (ARC, TruthfulQA), and code generation (HumanEval) tasks, even though we do not specifically collect such training data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06026 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of response preference dynamics between Self-Rewarding and Temporal Self-Rewarding (Temporal SR) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The performance of Self-Rewarding and Temporal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. User Prompt of Judging in Self-Rewarding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: System Prompt of Judging in Self-Rewarding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: AlpacaEval win rate breakdown for instruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Reward Hacking in the Era of Large Models: Mechanisms, Emergent Misalignment, Challenges

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper introduces the Proxy Compression Hypothesis as a unifying framework explaining reward hacking in RLHF as an emergent result of compressing high-dimensional human objectives into proxy reward signals under op...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Y.; Rajbhandari, S.; Awan, A

    Aminabadi, R. Y.; Rajbhandari, S.; Awan, A. A.; Li, C.; Li, D.; Zheng, E.; Ruwase, O.; Smith, S.; Zhang, M.; Rasley, J.; et al. 2022. Deepspeed-inference: enabling efficient inference of transformer models at unprecedented scale. In SC22: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, 1--15. IEEE

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    M.; Firat, O.; Johnson, M.; Lepikhin, D.; Passos, A.; Shakeri, S.; Taropa, E.; Bailey, P.; Chen, Z.; et al

    Anil, R.; Dai, A. M.; Firat, O.; Johnson, M.; Lepikhin, D.; Passos, A.; Shakeri, S.; Taropa, E.; Bailey, P.; Chen, Z.; et al. 2023. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Bai, Y.; Jones, A.; Ndousse, K.; Askell, A.; Chen, A.; DasSarma, N.; Drain, D.; Fort, S.; Ganguli, D.; Henighan, T.; et al. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al

    Brown, T.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J. D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877--1901

    2020

  5. [5]

    Chen, Z.; Deng, Y.; Yuan, H.; Ji, K.; and Gu, Q. 2024. Self-play fine-tuning converts weak language models to strong language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01335

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    W.; Sutton, C.; Gehrmann, S.; et al

    Chowdhery, A.; Narang, S.; Devlin, J.; Bosma, M.; Mishra, G.; Roberts, A.; Barham, P.; Chung, H. W.; Sutton, C.; Gehrmann, S.; et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Cui, G.; Yuan, L.; Ding, N.; Yao, G.; He, B.; Zhu, W.; Ni, Y.; Xie, G.; Xie, R.; Lin, Y.; Liu, Z.; and Sun, M. 2024. UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedback. arXiv:2310.01377

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    D.; and Chatzoglou, P

    Diamantidis, A. D.; and Chatzoglou, P. D. 2014. Employee post-training behaviour and performance: evaluating the results of the training process. International Journal of Training and Development, 18(3): 149--170

    work page 2014

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    J.; Rohatgi, D.; Zhang, C.; Simchowitz, M.; Ash, J

    Huang, A.; Block, A.; Foster, D. J.; Rohatgi, D.; Zhang, C.; Simchowitz, M.; Ash, J. T.; and Krishnamurthy, A. 2024. Self-Improvement in Language Models: The Sharpening Mechanism. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01951

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S.; Hou, L.; Wu, Y.; Wang, X.; Yu, H.; and Han, J

    Huang, J.; Gu, S. S.; Hou, L.; Wu, Y.; Wang, X.; Yu, H.; and Han, J. 2022. Large language models can self-improve. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11610

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Q.; Sablayrolles, A.; Mensch, A.; Bamford, C.; Chaplot, D

    Jiang, A. Q.; Sablayrolles, A.; Mensch, A.; Bamford, C.; Chaplot, D. S.; de las Casas, D.; Bressand, F.; Lengyel, G.; Lample, G.; Saulnier, L.; Lavaud, L. R.; Lachaux, M.-A.; Stock, P.; Scao, T. L.; Lavril, T.; Wang, T.; Lacroix, T.; and Sayed, W. E. 2023. Mistral 7B. arXiv:2310.06825

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Kirk, R.; Mediratta, I.; Nalmpantis, C.; Luketina, J.; Hambro, E.; Grefenstette, E.; and Raileanu, R. 2023. Understanding the effects of rlhf on llm generalisation and diversity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06452

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    o pf, A.; Kilcher, Y.; Von R \

    K \"o pf, A.; Kilcher, Y.; Von R \"u tte, D.; Anagnostidis, S.; Tam, Z. R.; Stevens, K.; Barhoum, A.; Nguyen, D.; Stanley, O.; Nagyfi, R.; et al. 2023. Openassistant conversations-democratizing large language model alignment. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ...

    2023

  6. [14]

    H.; Gonzalez, J

    Kwon, W.; Li, Z.; Zhuang, S.; Sheng, Y.; Zheng, L.; Yu, C. H.; Gonzalez, J. E.; Zhang, H.; and Stoica, I. 2023. Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles

    2023

  7. [15]

    Lanchantin, J.; Chen, A.; Dhuliawala, S.; Yu, P.; Weston, J.; Sukhbaatar, S.; and Kulikov, I. 2025. Diverse Preference Optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18101

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Li, J.; Sun, S.; Yuan, W.; Fan, R.-Z.; Zhao, H.; and Liu, P. 2023 a . Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05470

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    E.; and Stoica, I

    Li, T.; Chiang, W.-L.; Frick, E.; Dunlap, L.; Wu, T.; Zhu, B.; Gonzalez, J. E.; and Stoica, I. 2024. From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipeline. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11939

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Li, X.; Yu, P.; Zhou, C.; Schick, T.; Levy, O.; Zettlemoyer, L.; Weston, J.; and Lewis, M. 2023 b . Self-alignment with instruction backtranslation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06259

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Li, X.; Zhang, T.; Dubois, Y.; Taori, R.; Gulrajani, I.; Guestrin, C.; Liang, P.; and Hashimoto, T. B. 2023 c . AlpacaEval: An Automatic Evaluator of Instruction-following Models. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/alpaca_eval

    2023

  12. [20]

    Li , Y.; Hu , X.; Qu , X.; Li , L.; and Cheng , Y. 2025 a . Test-Time Preference Optimization: On-the-Fly Alignment via Iterative Textual Feedback . arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12895

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Li , Y.; Wang , Z.; Fu , T.; Cui , G.; Yang , S.; and Cheng , Y. 2025 b . From Drafts to Answers: Unlocking LLM Potential via Aggregation Fine-Tuning . arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.11877

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J.; and Liu, J

    Liu, T.; Zhao, Y.; Joshi, R.; Khalman, M.; Saleh, M.; Liu, P. J.; and Liu, J. 2023. Statistical rejection sampling improves preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06657

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report

    2023

  16. [24]

    Ouyang, L.; Wu, J.; Jiang, X.; Almeida, D.; Wainwright, C.; Mishkin, P.; Zhang, C.; Agarwal, S.; Slama, K.; Ray, A.; et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 27730--27744

    2022

  17. [25]

    Qu, Y.; Zhang, T.; Garg, N.; and Kumar, A. 2024. Recursive introspection: Teaching language model agents how to self-improve. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 55249--55285

    2024

  18. [26]

    D.; Ermon, S.; and Finn, C

    Rafailov, R.; Sharma, A.; Mitchell, E.; Manning, C. D.; Ermon, S.; and Finn, C. 2023. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 53728--53741

    2023

  19. [27]

    D.; and Arora, S

    Razin, N.; Wang, Z.; Strauss, H.; Wei, S.; Lee, J. D.; and Arora, S. 2025. What makes a reward model a good teacher? an optimization perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15477

    2025

  20. [28]

    Stiennon, N.; Ouyang, L.; Wu, J.; Ziegler, D.; Lowe, R.; Voss, C.; Radford, A.; Amodei, D.; and Christiano, P. F. 2020. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 3008--3021

    2020

  21. [29]

    Touvron, H.; Lavril, T.; Izacard, G.; Martinet, X.; Lachaux, M.-A.; Lacroix, T.; Rozi \`e re, B.; Goyal, N.; Hambro, E.; Azhar, F.; et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Wang, Y.; Yu, Z.; Zeng, Z.; Yang, L.; Wang, C.; Chen, H.; Jiang, C.; Xie, R.; Wang, J.; Xie, X.; Ye, W.; Zhang, S.; and Zhang, Y. 2024 a . PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimization

    2024

  23. [31]

    Wang, Z.; He, W.; Liang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Bansal, C.; Wei, Y.; Zhang, W.; and Yao, H. 2024 b . Cream: Consistency regularized self-rewarding language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12735

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Wang, Z.; Hou, L.; Lu, T.; Wu, Y.; Li, Y.; Yu, H.; and Ji, H. 2023. Enabling Language Models to Implicitly Learn Self-Improvement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00898

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Wu, T.; Yuan, W.; Golovneva, O.; Xu, J.; Tian, Y.; Jiao, J.; Weston, J.; and Sukhbaatar, S. 2024. Meta-rewarding language models: Self-improving alignment with llm-as-a-meta-judge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19594

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Yang, A.; Yang, B.; Zhang, B.; Hui, B.; Zheng, B.; Yu, B.; Li, C.; Liu, D.; Huang, F.; Wei, H.; et al. 2024. Qwen2. 5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Yu, X.; Peng, B.; Galley, M.; Gao, J.; and Yu, Z. 2023. Teaching language models to self-improve through interactive demonstrations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13522

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Y.; Cho , K.; Li , X.; Sukhbaatar , S.; Xu , J.; and Weston , J

    Yuan , W.; Pang , R. Y.; Cho , K.; Li , X.; Sukhbaatar , S.; Xu , J.; and Weston , J. 2024. Self-Rewarding Language Models . arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.10020

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Zeng, A.; Liu, X.; Du, Z.; Wang, Z.; Lai, H.; Ding, M.; Yang, Z.; Xu, Y.; Zheng, W.; Xia, X.; et al. 2022. Glm-130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02414

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zhang , H.; Cui , H.; Bao , G.; Yang , L.; Wang , J.; and Zhang , Y. 2025. Direct Value Optimization: Improving Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMs with Refined Values . arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.13723

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Zhang, S.; Liu, X.; Zhang, X.; Liu, J.; Luo, Z.; Huang, S.; and Gong, Y. 2025. Process-based self-rewarding language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03746

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Zhang, X.; Li, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Long, D.; Xie, P.; Zhang, M.; and Zhang, M. 2023. Language Models are Universal Embedders. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08232

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zhang, Y.; Schwarzschild, A.; Carlini, N.; Kolter, Z.; and Ippolito, D. 2024. Forcing diffuse distributions out of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10859

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Zheng, L.; Chiang, W.-L.; Sheng, Y.; Zhuang, S.; Wu, Z.; Zhuang, Y.; Lin, Z.; Li, Z.; Li, D.; Xing, E.; et al. 2023. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 46595--46623

    2023

  35. [43]

    Zhou, X.; Guo, Y.; Ma, R.; Gui, T.; Zhang, Q.; and Huang, X. 2025. Self-Consistency of the Internal Reward Models Improves Self-Rewarding Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08922

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  37. [45]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.