arXiv Machine Learning By Sung Cho, Gyubin Han

Reward-Aware Population Scaling of Evolutionary Strategies in LLM Fine-Tuning

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2607. 19408v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Using Evolutionary Strategies (ES) for fine-tuning large language models is attractive because it is memory-efficient, parallel, and compatible with black-box or discrete rewards.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 3

Why GRPO Needs Normalization: A Local-Curvature Perspective on Adaptive Gradients

The paper investigates why Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) benefits from per‑prompt normalization by examining the local curvature of the sequence‑level policy gradient. It shows that standard deviation normalization acts as an adaptive gradient, yielding a provably faster convergence rate than unnormalized REINFORCE under mild conditions, with the improvement tied to the average within‑prompt reward standard deviation. The authors also propose IS‑GRPO, an importance‑sampling variant that maintains alignment with the full gradient and offers a tighter convergence guarantee, and empirically validate these theoretical insights on GSM8K and MATH datasets at 1.5B and 7B model scales.

By Cheng Ge, Caitlyn Heqi Yin, Hao Liang, Jiawei Zhang
arXiv AI
Sep 25

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards for Small Search Agents

The paper introduces Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) applied to small search agents, specifically training a Qwen3.5-0.8B model with Group Relative Policy Optimization and an interleaved Wikipedia-search tool on the MuSiQue dataset. Experiments varying reward shapes across three seeds show that RLVR can achieve a 3.8‑fold improvement over an untrained baseline, with the best run reaching a 0.352 average exact match. The study finds that the sparse exact‑match reward, standard in larger models, performs poorly for small models, indicating that reward design must be tailored rather than scaled down from large‑model recipes.

By Gaurisankar Jayadas, Aske Plaat, \'Alvaro Serra-G\'omez, Sandheep P
arXiv AI
Oct 1

Revisiting scaling laws for reward optimization

The paper presents a new scaling law for reward optimization in AI alignment, showing that performance scales as Θ(√min{log(M), K}), where M is the number of preference comparisons used to train a proxy reward model and K is the KL‑divergence budget relative to a reference policy. The authors derive this law using an information‑theoretic model, prove its tightness, and validate it with extensive experiments involving a 70B gold reward model and smaller proxy models (0.6B–4B). The empirical results demonstrate a strong fit (R² 97–99 %) across different model sizes, noise levels, and optimization methods, suggesting that reward optimization behaves like a simple selection task over IID Gaussian variables with noisy feedback.

By Ali Aouad, Aymane El Gadarri, Vivek F. Farias
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 7

What pass@k Cannot Measure: Evaluating Diversity and Capability Retention after Post-Training

The paper critiques the use of pass@$k$ as a sole metric for evaluating reinforcement‑learning post‑training on language models, showing that it ignores diversity in model outputs. Experiments on Qwen2.5‑1.5B‑Instruct trained with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) and rejection‑sampling fine‑tuning (RFT) reveal that these methods shift token‑level, answer‑level, and unique‑answer diversity in opposite directions, yet pass@$k$ fails to capture these differences. Even when restricting to verifier‑correct completions, diversity gaps persist, and pass@$k$ does not consistently identify the better performing arm on hard problem subsets, indicating that the metric can mask true capability changes.

By Subham Rath, Raj Dandekar, Rajat Dandekar, Sreedath Panat