The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can learn from rewards presented in context, a process termed in‑context reinforcement learning (ICRL). Through experiments on four benchmarks and six models, the authors find that while LLMs read reward signals, altering or removing these signals has little effect on performance, and that trajectory structure—rather than reward content—drives improvement. These results suggest that direct ICRL behaves more like standard in‑context learning (ICL) than true inference‑time reinforcement learning.
By Minchan Kwon, Seunghee Koh, Sunghyun Baek, Minsung Bae, Junmo Kim
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can learn from rewards presented in context, a process termed in-context reinforcement learning (ICRL). Experiments across four benchmarks and six models show that while LLMs read reward signals, altering or removing these rewards has little impact on performance, and shuffled or corrupted trajectories are as effective as real ones. These findings suggest that direct ICRL behaves more like in-context learning (ICL) than true inference-time reinforcement learning.
By Minchan Kwon, Seunghee Koh, Sunghyun Baek, Minsung Bae, Junmo Kim
Effective machine learning depends not only on how we model data, but also on what data we choose to collect. While large sequence models have revolutionized data modeling, the problem of automated data selection, or "intrinsic curiosity", remains a significant challenge.
arXiv:2606. 19476v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Effective machine learning depends not only on how we model data, but also on what data we choose to collect.
By Eric Elmoznino, Sangnie Bhardwaj, Johannes von Oswald, Rajai Nasser, Blaise Ag\"uera y Arcas, Jo\~ao Sacramento, Rif A. Saurous, Guillaume Lajoie
The paper introduces Agentic In-Context Learning (Agentic ICL), a framework where fixed‑parameter Transformers learn from interactions that shape the context they receive. It models an interactive learner with state, update, and decision rules, covering active learning, bandits, and online reinforcement learning, and demonstrates that causal Transformers can approximate these algorithms over a finite horizon. Experiments show that Transformers can learn to execute recursions and that different reward signals produce distinct decision policies, with alignment between process supervision and outcome‑optimal actions influencing learned behavior.
By Shiguang Wu, Yaqing Wang, Quanming Yao
arXiv:2607. 11906v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The development of decision-pretrained transformers, algorithm distillation, long-context meta-RL, and retrieval-augmented agents has renewed interest in in-context reinforcement learning (ICRL): the ability of a pretrained or fine-tuned decision model to infer latent task rules and improve future behavior from interaction context, without test-time parameter updates.
By A Run, Ziluo Ding
arXiv:2608. 05111v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In partially observable reinforcement learning, agents face a dual bottleneck: they must explore to encounter rewarding states and retain that experience in memory to optimize their policies.
By Jai Malegaonkar, Rohan Patil, Henrik I. Christensen
The paper "Demystifying Reinforcement Learning Post-Training of Language Models" investigates how reinforcement learning (RL) post‑training enhances large language models (LLMs) for tasks such as reasoning, math, and coding. By isolating RL components in a controlled setting, the authors analyze how the base model’s prior distribution, reward granularity, prompt diversity, and model scale influence outcomes, using policy entropy to compare pre‑training, supervised fine‑tuning (SFT), and RL stages. The study clarifies the role of spurious rewards, the importance of the base model’s probability mass on desired behaviors, and how these factors interact to determine post‑training success, offering a practical primer for NLP researchers.
"whyItMatters":"The work provides a clearer understanding of RL post‑training mechanics, helping researchers and practitioners effectively apply RL to improve LLM capabilities."
By Donovan Clay, Saket Gollapudi, Sankar Harilal, Min Jang, Jacob Morrison, Sewoong Oh, Natasha Jaques
arXiv:2607.08837v4 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Exploration is essential to RL since a policy cannot improve by repeatedly sampling the behaviors it already prefers. Standard methods inject...
By Sunshine Jiang, John Marangola, David Zhang, Raghuram Kowdeed, Ruiyang Luo, Nitish Dashora, Richard Li, Pulkit Agrawal, Zhang-Wei Hong
arXiv:2511.05933v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) is often credited with improving reasoning at the expense of factual knowledge. We instead find that reasoning mo...
By Renfei Zhang, Manasa Kaniselvan, Rylan Schaeffer, Niloofar Mireshghallah
arXiv:2510.15047v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) as agents often fail to improve in new environments. We identify and characterize a failure mode we call explora...
By Shiqi Chen, Tongyao Zhu, Zian Wang, Jinghan Zhang, Kangrui Wang, Ruochen Zhou, Siyang Gao, Teng Xiao, Yee Whye Teh, Junxian He, Manling Li
The paper introduces On‑Policy Warmup (OPW), a teacher‑guided training stage where a student agent learns from a teacher on its own interaction trajectories before switching to reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). OPW differs from traditional imitation by focusing on states generated by the student’s own decisions, including imperfect actions and recovery situations. The authors provide a theoretical link between on‑policy reverse‑KL distillation and trajectory‑level distribution matching, showing that, under a competent teacher and low distillation loss, OPW can lower bound initial verifier success and reduce reward‑discovery complexity, thereby accelerating RLVR performance.
By Yitong Qiao, Tiantian He, Lei Liu, Yue Shen, Jian Wang, Jinjie Gu, Zhixuan Chu