arXiv AI By Ambuj Mehrish, Sebastiano Vascon

CoRE: Consensus Rewards via Equilibrium for Test-Time Reinforcement Learning

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2608. 09324v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: On unlabeled test data, reinforcement learning lacks a ground-truth reward; test-time RL methods derive one from the model's own roll-outs, rewarding those that match the majority vote over $N$ sampled answers.

Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Jul 14

LLMs as a Jury: Cross-Model Consensus Can Outperform Process Reward Models for LLM Reasoning

arXiv:2607. 10139v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the correct answer from a pool of candidate reasoning chains is the engine of test-time scaling, yet the standard selectors each carry a cost: self-consistency inherits the errors of the single model it resamples, and trained reward models need labeled data and transfer poorly off-distribution.

By Ning Liu
arXiv AI
2d ago

Inducing Reward-Free Judging Rubrics that Reduce Over-Crediting in Agent Evaluation

arXiv:2608. 13564v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating language-model agents at scale increasingly relies on a second language model as an automatic judge, because the gold signal, an executable environment reward, is expensive, slow, or unavailable at deployment time.

By Darragh Quinn, David Dylan, Roisin Healy, Fionn Carroll, Maeve Donnelly, Cormac Sheehan
arXiv Machine Learning
22h ago

Debate Training Reduces Reward Hacking in RLAIF

arXiv:2608. 17776v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We demonstrate that RL finetuning an LLM using debate, a two-player adversarial game between a generator and a critic adjudicated by a weaker LLM judge, reduces reward hacking compared to a reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) baseline.

By Zachary Kenton, Lili Janzer, Rory Greig, Tian Huey Teh, Kirill Tyshchuk, Jonah Brown-Cohen, Harri Edwards, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Noah Y. Siegel, Natasha Jaques, Rohin Shah