arXiv:2606. 00291v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In RLHF, each training example contains a prompt $x$ and two candidate responses $y,y'$, and annotators provide pairwise preferences between these responses.
arXiv:2606. 19162v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Score- and flow-matching models often rely on preference-based reinforcement learning for two purposes: aligning with subjective preferences and, surprisingly, recovering properties such as visual realism and coherent object structure that matching-based training is intended to learn from the data itself.
arXiv:2607. 04590v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Pairwise human comparisons are a primary interface through which modern AI systems learn human preferences.
arXiv:2605. 07724v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recursive retraining of generative models poses a critical representation challenge: when synthetic outputs are curated based on a fixed reward signal, the model tends to collapse onto a narrow set of outputs that over-optimize that objective.
arXiv:2606. 01561v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences is often formulated via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO).
arXiv:2603. 06957v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We study post-training linear autoregressive models with outcome and process rewards.
arXiv:2606. 09124v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has enabled progress on reasoning-intensive tasks by relying on task-specific verifiers that provide automated correctness signals.
arXiv:2606. 30627v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Conservative offline training is widely advocated as a safe foundation for subsequent online adaptation: if a policy stays close to well-supported behaviour, the argument goes, it is less likely to exploit imperfections in a learned reward model.
arXiv:2607. 26358v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuning is widely used in language model training to improve model performance on a target task while limiting drift from a reference policy.
arXiv:2607. 16232v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The growing use of statistical learning algorithms to infer human preferences from high-dimensional choice data runs up against a fundamental challenge: choice alternatives typically differ in many ways simultaneously, so it is generally unclear which factors actually drove an observed decision and should be credited as preferences.
arXiv:2608. 10126v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) aggregates heterogeneous preferences into a single reward model, assuming preference homogeneity.
arXiv:2608. 01556v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models are increasingly aligned to human preferences via reward modeling, but user preference data are sensitive and often cannot be centralized.
arXiv:2608. 14828v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Aligning a language agent to several objectives at once is a persistent failure mode of preference-based training: when objectives are combined additively, optimization collapses onto whichever is cheapest to improve and sacrifices the rest, so a support agent learns to sound warm while giving no real help.