RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedback
Open accessAbstract
Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has proven effective in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences, but gathering high-quality preference labels is expensive. RL from AI Feedback (RLAIF), introduced in Bai et al., offers a promising alternative that trains the reward model (RM) on preferences generated by an off-the-shelf LLM. Across the tasks of summarization, helpful dialogue generation, and harmless dialogue generation, we show that RLAIF achieves comparable performance to RLHF. Furthermore, we take a step towards "self-improvement" by demonstrating that RLAIF can outperform a supervised fine-tuned baseline even when the AI labeler is the same size as the policy, or even the exact same checkpoint as the initial policy. Finally, we introduce direct-RLAIF (d-RLAIF) - a technique that circumvents RM training by obtaining rewards directly from an off-the-shelf LLM during RL, which achieves superior performance to canonical RLAIF. Our results suggest that RLAIF can achieve performance on-par with using human feedback, offering a potential solution to the scalability limitations of RLHF.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The finding that increasing SC samplings has no significant impact on the alignment labeling tasks is consistent with Lee et al. (2023).
“This finding is consistent with Table 13 in Lee et al. (2023).”
From Improving Multi-Agent Debate with Sparse Communication Topology (2024) · cites this paper as Lee et al. (2023)
The self-consistency experiment reports that using 4 versus 16 samples did not affect AI labeler alignment, supporting the comparison for summarization. It does not establish the result across alignment-labeling tasks: self-consistency reduced alignment relative to the no-self-consistency baseline. The cited Table 13 concerns length-controlled win rates, not self-consistency sampling; the relevant results are discussed in the self-consistency experiment and Table 14 (page unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRLAIF has technical challenges such as hallucinations when using a pre-trained LLM in place of a human annotator in preference ranking.
“there are several technical challenges to RLAIF, such as ‘hallucinations’—the phenomenon where factually incorrect or unfounded outputs are generated—that occur when using a pre-trained LLM in place of a human annotator in preference ranking (Lee et al., 2023).”
From Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2023
Section 3.2 says the paper uses an LLM to label preferences, and the discussion of Table 19 describes an inaccurate AI-labeler rationale that mistakenly attributes a statement to a summary. This supports a narrower concern about errors in LLM preference ranking, but the paper does not establish hallucinations as a general consequence of replacing human annotators. Section 5 instead describes examples in which RLHF summaries hallucinated and RLAIF summaries did not. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRLHF seems to be an important tool for improving the human-likeness of LLM outputs.
“RLHF seems to be an important tool for improving the human-likeness of LLM outputs (Lee et al., 2023).”
From Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2023
The Introduction calls RLHF effective for aligning language models with human preferences, and the human-evaluation results show that people preferred RLHF outputs over supervised-fine-tuned outputs on the tested tasks. That supports improved human-preferred output quality, but the paper does not assess whether those outputs are more human-like. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe LLMs trained by Lee et al. (2023) achieved near-human performance in summarization tasks with RLAIF without any human feedback.
“The LLMs trained in the work by Lee et al. (2023) achieved near-human performance in summarization tasks with RLAIF without any human feedback.”
From Verbosity Bias in Preference Labeling by Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Lee et al. (2023)
Section 4.1 reports that RLAIF and RLHF summarization models were preferred over the supervised baseline 71% and 73% of the time, respectively, and says RLAIF does not depend on human annotation for preference labels. This supports performance comparable to a human-feedback-trained model, not performance comparable to human summarizers. The summarization models also began with supervised fine-tuning on Reddit TL;DR data (Appendix F), so “without any human feedback” is too broad if it refers to the entire training process. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe study used AI Labeler Alignment (Lee et al., 2023) to measure the accuracy of MAD labeling with respect to human annotation.
“We use AI Labeler Alignment (Lee et al., 2023) to measure the accuracy of MAD labeling with respect to the human annotation.”
From Improving Multi-Agent Debate with Sparse Communication Topology (2024) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2023
Reinforcement learning methods such as RLHF and RLAIF have proven effective in aligning LLM outputs with expected behaviors.
“Reinforcement learning methods, such as RLHF [37] and RLAIF [22], have proven effective in aligning LLM outputs with expected behaviors.”
From Large Language Model Agent in Financial Trading: A Survey (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
Feedback-based learning helps LLMs align with intended outcomes and improves their instruction-following across various feedback types.
“Learning from feedback helps align LLMs with desired outcomes, enhancing their ability to follow instructions through different forms of feedback, such as human preference feedback (Ouyang et al., 2022), AI-generated preference feedback (Lee et al., 2023; Dubois et al., 2024), or fine-grained feedback (Wu et al., 2024; Lightman et al., 2023).”
From MCQG-SRefine: Multiple Choice Question Generation and Evaluation with Iterative Self-Critique, Correction, and Comparison Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2023
The cost of output ranking using LLMs is estimated to be 10 times cheaper than using human annotators.
“it has been estimated that the cost of output ranking using LLMs is 10 times cheaper than using human annotators (Lee et al., 2023).”
From Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2023
RLAIF has been proposed as a technique to alleviate the human-label bottleneck without compromising performance.
“Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) has been proposed as a technique to alleviate this bottleneck without compromising performance (Lee et al., 2023; Bai et al., 2022).”
From Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2023
RLAIF replaces human feedback with feedback from other LLMs.
“Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) was proposed (Bai et al., 2022b;Lee et al., 2023), which replaces human feedback with inexpensive feedback from other LLMs.”
From Verbosity Bias in Preference Labeling by Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translation
Wu, Y., Schuster, M., Chen, Z., Le, Q. V., Norouzi, M., Macherey, W., Krikun, M., Cao, Y., Gao, Q., Macherey, K., et al. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.08144 · Cited by 5,319 · cited 1× · see citing works
“While initial applications of RL on tasks such as translation (Wu et al., 2016; 2018) and summarization (Gao et al., 2019; Wu & Hu, 2018) used automatic evaluation metrics as rewards, such simplified formulations of rewards did not fully align with human notions of quality.”
MethodScaling Laws for Neural Language Models
Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · Cited by 1,749 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Alignment decreases by 4% when substituting PaLM 2 L with PaLM 2 S, and decreases another 11% when us-ing PaLM 2 XS - a trend consistent with scaling behaviors observed in other work (Kaplan et al., 2020).”
Result
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schul- man, J., and Mané, D. Concrete problems in ai safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565, 2016. · arXiv
- Bai, Y., Jones, A., Ndousse, K., Askell, A., Chen, A., Das- Sarma, N., Drain, D., Fort, S., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., et al. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with rein- forcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862, 2022a. · arXiv
- Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877-1901, 2020.
- Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311, 2022. · arXiv
- Christiano, P. F., Leike, J., Brown, T., Martic, M., Legg, S., and Amodei, D. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 30, 2017.
- Ding, B., Qin, C., Liu, L., Chia, Y. K., Li, B., Joty, S., and Bing, L. Is GPT-3 a good data annotator? In Pro- ceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 11173-11195, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/ 2023.acl-long.626. URL https://aclanthology. org/2023.acl-long.626. · DOI · Paper page
- Dong, H., Xiong, W., Goyal, D., Zhang, Y., Chow, W., Pan, R., Diao, S., Zhang, J., SHUM, K., and Zhang, T. RAFT: Reward ranked finetuning for generative founda- tion model alignment. Transactions on Machine Learn- ing Research, 2023. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=m7p5O7zblY.
- Ethayarajh, K., Choi, Y., and Swayamdipta, S. Under- standing dataset difficulty with V-usable information. In Chaudhuri, K., Jegelka, S., Song, L., Szepesvari, C., Niu, G., and Sabato, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 5988-6008. PMLR, 17-23 Jul 2022.
- Everitt, T. and Hutter, M. Avoiding wireheading with value reinforcement learning. In Artificial General Intel- ligence: 9th International Conference, AGI 2016, New York, NY, USA, July 16-19, 2016, Proceedings 9, pp. 12- 22. Springer, 2016.
- Fan, A., Lewis, M., and Dauphin, Y. Hierarchical neu- ral story generation. In Proceedings of the 56th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 889-898, Mel- bourne, Australia, July 2018. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/P18-1082. URL https://aclanthology.org/P18-1082. · DOI · Paper page
- Feng, S. Y., Gangal, V., Wei, J., Chandar, S., Vosoughi, S., Mitamura, T., and Hovy, E. A survey of data augmenta- tion approaches for NLP. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pp. 968-988, Online, August 2021. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl. · DOI
- Fox, R., Pakman, A., and Tishby, N. Taming the noise in reinforcement learning via soft updates. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.08562, 2015. · arXiv
- Gao, Y., Meyer, C. M., Mesgar, M., and Gurevych, I. Reward learning for efficient reinforcement learning in extractive document summarisation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.12894, 2019. · arXiv
- Geist, M., Scherrer, B., and Pietquin, O. A theory of regu- larized markov decision processes. In International Con- ference on Machine Learning, pp. 2160-2169. PMLR, 2019.
- Gilardi, F., Alizadeh, M., and Kubli, M. Chatgpt outper- forms crowd-workers for text-annotation tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15056, 2023. · arXiv
- Glaese, A., McAleese, N., Trebacz, M., Aslanides, J., Firoiu, V., Ewalds, T., Rauh, M., Weidinger, L., Chadwick, M., Thacker, P., et al. Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14375, 2022. · arXiv
- Howard, R. A. Dynamic programming and markov pro- cesses. John Wiley, 1960.
- Huang, J., Gu, S. S., Hou, L., Wu, Y., Wang, X., Yu, H., and Han, J. Large language models can self-improve. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11610, 2022. · arXiv
- Jaques, N., Gu, S., Bahdanau, D., Hernández-Lobato, J. M., Turner, R. E., and Eck, D. Sequence tutor: Conserva- tive fine-tuning of sequence generation models with kl- control. In International Conference on Machine Learn- ing, pp. 1645-1654. PMLR, 2017.
- Kendall, M. G. and Smith, B. B. The Problem of m Rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statis- tics, 10(3):275 -287, 1939. doi: 10.1214/aoms/ 1177732186. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/ aoms/1177732186. · DOI
- Kwon, M., Xie, S. M., Bullard, K., and Sadigh, D. Reward design with language models. In The Eleventh Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
- Lai, V. D., Van Nguyen, C., Ngo, N. T., Nguyen, T., Der- noncourt, F., Rossi, R. A., and Nguyen, T. H. Okapi: Instruction-tuned large language models in multiple lan- guages with reinforcement learning from human feed- back. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.16039, 2023. · arXiv
- Liu, Y., Han, T., Ma, S., Zhang, J., Yang, Y., Tian, J., He, H., Li, A., He, M., Liu, Z., et al. Summary of chatgpt/gpt-4 research and perspective towards the future of large lan- guage models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01852, 2023. · arXiv
- Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., et al. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17651, 2023. · arXiv
- Meng, Y., Michalski, M., Huang, J., Zhang, Y., Abdelzaher, T., and Han, J. Tuning language models as training data generators for augmentation-enhanced few-shot learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 24457-24477. PMLR, 2023.
- Min, S., Lyu, X., Holtzman, A., Artetxe, M., Lewis, M., Hajishirzi, H., and Zettlemoyer, L. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 11048- 11064, 2022.
- Nakano, R., Hilton, J., Balaji, S., Wu, J., Ouyang, L., Kim, C., Hesse, C., Jain, S., Kosaraju, V., Saunders, W., et al. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with hu- man feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09332, 2021. · arXiv
- Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744, 2022.
- Pezeshkpour, P. and Hruschka, E. Large language mod- els sensitivity to the order of options in multiple-choice questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11483, 2023. · arXiv
- Rafailov, R., Sharma, A., Mitchell, E., Manning, C. D., Er- mon, S., and Finn, C. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
- Roit, P., Ferret, J., Shani, L., Aharoni, R., Cideron, G., Dadashi, R., Geist, M., Girgin, S., Hussenot, L., Keller, O., et al. Factually consistent summarization via re- inforcement learning with textual entailment feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00186, 2023. · arXiv
- Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., and Klimov, O. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017. · arXiv
- Shazeer, N. and Stern, M. Adafactor: Adaptive learning rates with sublinear memory cost. CoRR, abs/1804.04235, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/1804.04235. · arXiv
- Stiennon, N., Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Ziegler, D., Lowe, R., Voss, C., Radford, A., Amodei, D., and Christiano, P. F. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 3008-3021, 2020.
- Sutton, R. S., McAllester, D., Singh, S., and Mansour, Y. Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 12, 1999.
- Thoppilan, R., De Freitas, D., Hall, J., Shazeer, N., Kul- shreshtha, A., Cheng, H.-T., Jin, A., Bos, T., Baker, L., Du, Y., et al. Lamda: Language models for dialog appli- cations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239, 2022. · arXiv
- Wang, B., Min, S., Deng, X., Shen, J., Wu, Y., Zettlemoyer, L., and Sun, H. Towards understanding chain-of-thought prompting: An empirical study of what matters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10001, 2022a. · arXiv
- Wang, P., Li, L., Chen, L., Zhu, D., Lin, B., Cao, Y., Liu, Q., Liu, T., and Sui, Z. Large language models are not fair evaluators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17926, 2023. · arXiv
- Wang, S., Liu, Y., Xu, Y., Zhu, C., and Zeng, M. Want to reduce labeling cost? gpt-3 can help. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pp. 4195-4205, 2021a.
- Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q. V., Chi, E. H., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., and Zhou, D. Self- consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in lan- guage models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022b.
- Wang, Z., Yu, A. W., Firat, O., and Cao, Y. To- wards zero-label language learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.09193, 2021b. · arXiv
- Wei, J., Bosma, M., Zhao, V., Guu, K., Yu, A. W., Lester, B., Du, N., Dai, A. M., and Le, Q. V. Finetuned lan- guage models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
- Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., Zhou, D., et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 24824-24837, 2022.
- Wu, L., Tian, F., Qin, T., Lai, J., and Liu, T.-Y. A study of reinforcement learning for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 3612-3621, 2018.
- Wu, Y. and Hu, B. Learning to extract coherent summary via deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 5602, 2018.
- Ziegler, D. M., Stiennon, N., Wu, J., Brown, T. B., Radford, A., Amodei, D., Christiano, P., and Irving, G. Fine-tuning language models from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08593, 2019. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Back to Basics: Revisiting REINFORCE Style Optimization for Learning from Human Feedback in LLMsPreprint
Ahmadian, A., Cremer, C., Gallé, M., Fadaee, M., Kreutzer, J., Pietquin, O., Ustun, A., & Hooker, S. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.14740 · Cited by 795 · see citing works
“Despite being the focus of considerable research effort (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022b; Lee et al., 2023; Tunstall et al., 2023; Khalifa et al., 2021), there is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach to achieve this goal.”
From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge
Li, D., Jiang, B., Huang, L., Beigi, A., Zhao, C., Tan, Z., Bhattacharjee, A., Jiang, Y., Chen, C., Wu, T., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.16594 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
“Several studies have also incorporated swapping operations in self-alignment (Lee et al., 2023; Sun et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2024) to obtain more accurate pairwise feed-back from the judge LLM. Zhu et al. (2024a) proposed a CoT-like prompting technique to mitigate the positional bias by asking the…”
InfluentialORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model
Hong, J., Lee, N., & Thorne, J. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.07691 · Cited by 744
“Extensions such as language model feedback (RLAIF) could be a viable alternative to human feedback (Bai et al., 2022b; Lee et al., 2023; Pang et al., 2023).”
DanceGRPO: Unleashing GRPO on Visual Generation
Xue, Z.-Y., Wu, J., Gao, Y., Kong, F.-Y., Zhu, L.-T., Chen, M.-Z., Liu, Z.-H., Liu, W., Guo, Q.-S., Huang, W., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.07818 · Cited by 433
GraphGPT: Graph Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models
Tang, J., Yang, Y., Wei, W., Shi, L., Su, L., Cheng, S., Yin, D., & Huang, C. (2024) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3626772.3657775 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
“This significant reduction in token consumption translates to a substantial decrease in training and inference resource requirements.”
Large Language Models: A Survey
Minaee, S., Mikolov, T., Nikzad, N., Chenaghlu, M., Socher, R., Amatriain, X., & Gao, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.06196 · Cited by 325 · see citing works
“Reinforcement learning from AI feedback on the other hand, directly connects a pretrained and well-aligned model to the LLM and helps it to learn from larger and more aligned models [138].”
From System 1 to System 2: A Survey of Reasoning Large Language Models
Zhang, D., Li, Z., Zhang, M.-L., Zhang, J., Liu, Z., Yao, Y., Xu, H., Zheng, J., Chen, X., Zhang, Y., et al. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2025.3637037 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Using Human Feedback to Fine-tune Diffusion Models without Any Reward Model
Yang, K., Tao, J., Lyu, J., Ge, C., Chen, J., Shen, W., Zhu, X., & Li, X. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00854 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
“Some recent research utilizes Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) [32, 62] as an alternative to RLHF for model fine-tuning.”
OpenFedLLM: Training Large Language Models on Decentralized Private Data via Federated Learning
Ye, R., Wang, W., Chai, J., Li, D., Li, Z., Xu, Y., Du, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, S. (2024) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671582 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
“(3) Value alignment on human-annotated or AI-annotated preference dataset where humans’ value is injected into the LLMs [1, 39, 56].”
A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generation
Jiang, J., Wang, F., Shen, J., Kim, S., & Kim, S. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3747588 · Cited by 251 · see citing works
“LLM evaluation metrics are criteria used to quantify the performance of LLM systems in aspects such as correctness of the answers, semantic similarity, and hallucination [50].”
Exploring Large Language Model‐Based Intelligent Agents: Definitions, Methods, and Prospects
Cheng, Y.-H., Zhang, C., Zhang, Z.-W., Meng, X.-R., Hong, S.-R., Li, W.-H., Wang, Z., Wang, Z.-K., Yin, F., Zhao, J.-H., et al. (2024) · WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.70111 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
“Techniques like Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) (Lee et al. 2023) utilize AI feedback to allow agents to self-improve without expensive human labels.”
Meta-Rewarding Language Models: Self-Improving Alignment with LLM-as-a-Meta-JudgePreprint
Wu, T., Yuan, W.-Z., Golovneva, O., Xu, J., Tian, Y.-D., Jiao, J.-T., Weston, J. E., & Sukhbaatar, S. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.19594 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Aligning Modalities in Vision Large Language Models via Preference Fine-tuningPreprint
Zhou, Y.-Y., Cui, C.-H., Rafailov, R., Finn, C., & Yao, H. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.11411 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Parameter-efficient fine-tuning in large language models: a survey of methodologies
Wang, L., Chen, S., Jiang, L., Pan, S., Cai, R., Yang, S., & Yang, F. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11236-4 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
“2) Soft Prompt: Soft prompt methods involve appending a sequence of trainable continuous vectors, known as soft prompts, to the input of pre-trained language models.”
Wang, H.-X., Lin, Y., Xiong, W., Yang, R., Diao, S., Qiu, S., Zhao, H., & Zhang, T. (2024) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.18571 · Cited by 179
“Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) (Christiano et al., 2017; Ziegler et al., 2019; Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022b; Lee et al., 2023), is the leading approach to adapt LLMs towards these complex, often implicitly-defined goals.”
Direct Preference Optimization of Video Large Multimodal Models from Language Model Reward
Zhang, R., Gui, L., Sun, Z., Feng, Y.-H., Xu, K., Zhang, Y.-H., Fu, D., Li, C.-Y., Hauptmann, A., Bisk, Y., et al. (2024) · North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.01258 · Cited by 170
“Despite recent advancements in reinforcement learning (RL) (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2023; Sun et al., 2023b) and DPO (Rafailov et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2024b; Hosseini et al., 2024), which have been effective in guiding LLMs towards generating more honest, helpful, and…”
Bewersdorff, A., Hartmann, C., Hornberger, M., Seßler, K., Bannert, M., Kasneci, E., Kasneci, G., Zhaı, X., & Nerdel, C. (2025) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102601 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
“Incorporating human feedback through the training of reward models and applying reinforcement learning in the fine-tuning step [Lee et al. 2023b; Ouyang et al. 2022] has significantly enhanced the generation of human-like language that is aligned with social norms and goals and has led to the…”
Rule Based Rewards for Language Model Safety
Mu, T., Helyar, A., Heidecke, J., Achiam, J., Vallone, A., Kivlichan, I., Lin, M., Beutel, A., Schulman, J., & Weng, L. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.01111 · Cited by 168
“To address these issues, methods that use AI feedback [9–12] have recently gained popularity, most prominently Constitutional AI [10].”
Interactive Post-Training for Vision-Language-Action Models
Tan, S.-H., Dou, K.-R., Zhao, Y., & Krähenbühl, P. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.17016 · Cited by 160
“This”
LLM Post-Training: A Deep Dive Into Reasoning Large Language Models
Kumar, K., Ashraf, T., Thawakar, O., Anwer, R., Cholakkal, H., Shah, M., Yang, M.-H., Torr, P. H. S., Khan, S. H., & Khan, F. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2026.3720414 · Cited by 137
LiPO: Listwise Preference Optimization through Learning-to-Rank
Liu, T.-Q., Qin, Z., Wu, J.-R., Shen, J., Khalman, M., Joshi, R., Zhao, Y., Saleh, M., Baumgartner, S., Liu, J., et al. (2024) · North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.01878 · Cited by 128
“For task examples see Figure 5 and Figure 6 for Reddit TL;DR and AnthropicHH respectively.”
Li, Z., Wu, X., Du, H., Liu, F., Nghiem, H. T., & Shi, G. (2025) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw67362.2025.00147 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
“We hope that our survey provides a solid general overview for practitioners as a road map for future works.”
Group Robust Preference Optimization in Reward-free RLHF
Ramesh, S., Hu, Y.-F., Chaimalas, I., Mehta, V., Sessa, P. G., Bou-Ammar, H., & Bogunovic, I. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.20304 · Cited by 124
“However, obtaining high-quality human feedback data is expensive and several works such as [35, 2, 25] study the usage of AI feedback to reduce reliance on human input.”
RLAIF-V: Open-Source AI Feedback Leads to Super GPT-4V Trustworthiness
Yu, T., Zhang, H.-Y., Li, Q.-M., Xu, Q.-X., Yao, Y., Chen, D., Lu, X., Cui, G., Dang, Y., He, T., et al. (2024) · Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.01861 · Cited by 121
Process Reward Model with Q-Value Rankings
Li, W.-D., & Li, Y. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.11287 · Cited by 106
“For simplicity, the instruction x is omitted in the state notation ( x, a 1: t ) thereafter when no ambiguity arises.”
Wei, H., He, S.-H., Xia, T., Liu, F.-H., Wong, A., Lin, J.-Y., & Han, M. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.13006 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
“Wang et. al [21] and Lee et. al [37] observed the position bias when using GPT-4 [11] and PaLM 2 [38] as the judge for the pairwise comparison between candidate LLMs.”
SPA-VL: A Comprehensive Safety Preference Alignment Dataset for Vision Language Models
Zhang, Y.-T., Chen, L.-Y., Zheng, G.-D., Gao, Y., Zheng, R., Fu, J.-L., Yin, Z.-F., Jin, S.-J., Qiao, Y., Huang, X.-J., et al. (2024) · Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.01850 · Cited by 99
“RLHF offers the most straight-forward approach to achieving this goal.”
Inference-Aware Fine-Tuning for Best-of-N Sampling in Large Language ModelsPreprint
Chow, Y.-L., Tennenholtz, G., Gur, I., Zhuang, V., Dai, B., Thiagarajan, S., Boutilier, C., Agarwal, R., Kumar, A., & Faust, A. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.15287 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
“…BoN-RLB, and BoN-RLB(P) against several baselines: (1) STaR from Remark C.3, which uses self-training over correctly generated responses; (2) RL (Lee et al., 2023) with verifier feedback (RL-V); (3) RL with environment feedback (RL-S); (4) standard SFT of the base policy (SFT, N ′ = 1 ); and…”
Reinforcement Learning Enhanced LLMs: A SurveyPreprint
Wang, S.-H., Zhang, S., Zhang, J., Hu, R.-Y., Li, X., Zhang, T.-W., Li, J., Wu, F., Wang, G.-Y., & Hovy, E. H. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.10400 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
“…preferences (e.g., selecting As the policy is trained, the generated trajectories become increasingly out-of-distribution from the dataset the RM was trained on, leading to suboptimal performance (Bai et al., 2022a). selecting the better output) or assigns scores based on task-specific…”
Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
Casper, S., Davies, X., Shi, C., Gilbert, T. K., Scheurer, J., Rando, J., Freedman, R., Korbak, T., Lindner, D., Freire, P., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.15217 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Beyond Chain-of-Thought: A Survey of Chain-of-X Paradigms for LLMsPreprint
Xia, Y., Wang, R., Liu, X., Li, M., Yu, T., Chen, X., McAuley, J. J., & Li, S. (2024) · International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.15676 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Weyssow, M., Kamanda, A., Zhou, X., & Sahraoui, H. A. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3736407 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“5 to rate the alignment of the LLMs’ responses with respect to the instruction’s coding preference, resulting in annotations comprising a numerical rating and a textual rationale for the rating.”
PAPILLON: PrivAcy Preservation from Internet-based and Local Language MOdel ENsembles
Li, S., Raghuram, V. C., Khattab, O., Hirschberg, J., & Yu, Z. (2024) · North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.17127 · Cited by 85
“Like recent literature (Zheng et al., 2023a; Guo et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2023), we employ LLMs as a judge for these two qualities.”
Knowledge Mechanisms in Large Language Models: A Survey and Perspective
Wang, M.-R., Yao, Y., Xu, Z., Qiao, S.-F., Deng, S.-M., Wang, P., Chen, X., Gu, J.-C., Jiang, Y., Xie, P.-J., et al. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.15017 · Cited by 81
“Note that safety issues usually caused by the distribution of unseen data (adversarial input) (Wei et al., 2023; Li et al., 2024b), which is elaborated in §6.4.”
InfluentialWhat is the Role of Small Models in the LLM Era: A Survey
Chen, L.-H., & Varoquaux, G. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.06857 · Cited by 80
“However, expanding the range of knowledge transferred from the teacher model, including feedback on the student’s outputs (Lee et al., 2023) and feature knowledge (Gu et al., 2024), can offer additional benefits.”
Learning to Clarify: Multi-turn Conversations with Action-Based Contrastive Self-TrainingPreprint
Chen, M., Sun, R., Arik, S. Ö., & Pfister, T. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.00222 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
“These approaches typically start with an initial policy model obtained by conducting SFT on a target task ( π SFT ), before performing RL tuning using contrastive preference examples (most commonly collected through human feedback [8] or a similar proxy like LLM-generated feedback [37]).”
MLLM-Tool: A Multimodal Large Language Model for Tool Agent Learning
Wang, C., Luo, W., Dong, S., Xuan, X., Li, Z., Ma, L., & Gao, S. (2025) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61041.2025.00650 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“With the promising capability of the instruction following via reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) [2, 5, 11], developers extend LLMs, e.g., ChatGPT with a Function Call feature, to the tool-use domain.”
InfluentialDistRL: An Asynchronous Distributed Reinforcement Learning Framework for On-Device Control AgentsPreprint
Wang, T., Wu, Z.-H., Liu, J., Hao, J., Wang, J., & Shao, K. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.14803 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
“Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF), using AI labelers as proxies, offers an alternative (Yu et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2023).”
Robust Preference Optimization through Reward Model Distillation
Fisch, A., Eisenstein, J., Zayats, V., Agarwal, A., Beirami, A., Nagpal, C., Shaw, P., & Berant, J. (2024) · Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.19316 · Cited by 76
“On the other hand, explicit reward models can easily be regularized and understood—regardless of whether they are Bradley-Terry models [4], margin-based ranking models [40], or simply any other kind of function that correlates well with human preferences [31; 17].”
HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework
Sheng, G., Zhang, C., Ye, Z., Wu, X., Zhang, W., Zhang, R., Peng, Y., Lin, H., & Wu, C. (2025) · Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems · doi:10.1145/3689031.3696075 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
“RLHF aligns the linguistic space of LLMs with human values, using a set of human-ranked candidates of given prompts [7, 19, 41, 43, 55, 70, 91].”
Creativity and Machine Learning: A Survey
Franceschelli, G., & Musolesi, M. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3664595 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
“Both types of input-based methods can be used not only to produce desired outputs or to transfer styles; they can also be used to better analyze what it is inside the network [170, 177].”
Optimization-based Prompt Injection Attack to LLM-as-a-Judge
Shi, J., Yuan, Z., Liu, Y., Huang, Y., Zhou, P., Sun, L., & Gong, N. Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3658644.3690291 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
The Best Instruction-Tuning Data are Those That Fit
Zhang, D., Dai, Q., & Peng, H. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.04194 · Cited by 68
“Recent advances in RLHF (Ouyang et al., 2022), RLAIF (Lee et al., 2024b) and preference learning (Rafailov et al., 2023) research have identified the benefits of on-policy data for model alignment (Xu et al., 2024b; Tajwar et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024c; Guo et al., 2024b; Liu et al., 2024d;…”
Fuzzing JavaScript Interpreters with Coverage-Guided Reinforcement Learning for LLM-Based Mutation
Eom, J., Jeong, S., & Kwon, T. (2024) · ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA) · doi:10.1145/3650212.3680389 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
“Finetuning LLMs. Methods for finetuning LLMs, including Code-LLMs are categorized into supervised finetuning (SFT), instruction finetuning [64], and RL-based finetuning [28, 44, 49].”
ChatGLM-Math: Improving Math Problem-Solving in Large Language Models with a Self-Critique Pipeline
Xu, Y.-F., Liu, X., Liu, X.-H., Hou, Z., Li, Y.-Y., Zhang, X.-H., Wang, Z.-H., Zeng, A.-H., Du, Z.-X., Zhao, W.-Y., et al. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.02893 · Cited by 67
“This self-critique mechanism enables the model to learn from AI-generated feedback specifically tailored to mathematical content (Bai et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2023).”
R1-ShareVL: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability of Multimodal Large Language Models via Share-GRPO
Yao, H.-J., Yin, Q.-X., Zhang, J.-Y., Yang, M., Wang, Y.-B., Wu, W., Su, F., Shen, L., Qiu, M.-H., Tao, D.-C., et al. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.16673 · Cited by 65
“…learning has become an essential technology for enhancing the capabilities of MLLMs. Early research primarily focused on Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback(RLHF) [26, 27, 28, 29], which aligns the outputs of multimodal models with human preferences by incorporating human feedback signals.”
RMB: Comprehensively Benchmarking Reward Models in LLM Alignment
Zhou, E.-Y., Zheng, G.-D., Wang, B., Xi, Z.-H., Dou, S.-H., Bao, R., Shen, W., Xiong, L., Fan, J., Mou, Y.-R., et al. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.09893 · Cited by 64
“They first describe the evaluation criteria and value orientation of human preferences to the model and then ask it to assess whether the response matches these standards (Bai et al., 2022b; Lee et al., 2023).”
McIntosh, T. R., Susnjak, T., Liu, T., Watters, P., & Halgamuge, M. N. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems · doi:10.1109/tcds.2024.3377445 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Buess, L., Keicher, M., Navab, N., Maier, A., & Arasteh, S. T. (2025) · Biomedical Engineering Letters · doi:10.1007/s13534-025-00497-1 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
“Models such as DNABERT [56] have advanced gene annotation, while AlphaFold [5] has achieved groundbreaking success in protein structure prediction.”
Language Models Resist Alignment: Evidence From Data Compression
Ji, J., Wang, K., Qiu, T. A., Chen, B., Zhou, J., Li, C., Lou, H., Dai, J., Liu, Y., & Yang, Y. (2025) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1141 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“…(SFT), reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) (Ouyang et al., 2022), and other derivatives (Rafailov et al., 2024; Bai et al., 2022b; Lee et al., 2023; Gulcehre et al., 2023; Dong et al., 2023; Xiong et al., 2024; Li et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023, 2025; Ji et al., 2024a), are the…”
World-Env: Leveraging World Model as a Virtual Environment for VLA Post-TrainingPreprint
Xiao, J., Yang, Y.-D., Chang, X.-Y., Chen, R.-H., Xiong, F., Xu, M., Zheng, W., & Zhang, Q. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.24948 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
“Training Data Strategy Step-wise Reflection demonstrated considerable potential in enhancing decision-making capabilities of large language models (LLMs) [15, 28, 32, 38].”
VideoWorld: Exploring Knowledge Learning from Unlabeled Videos
Ren, Z.-W., Wei, Y.-C., Guo, X., Zhao, Y., Kang, B.-Y., Feng, J., & Jin, X.-J. (2025) · Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.02703 · Cited by 59
“Existing works have achieved remarkable success in reasoning tasks using language models with techniques like chain-of-thought [66, 73] and reinforcement learning [34, 45].”
FLEX: Continuous Agent Evolution via Forward Learning from Experience
Cai, Z.-C., Guo, X.-Y., Pei, Y., Feng, J.-T., Su, J.-S., Chen, J.-J., Zhang, Y.-Q., Ma, W.-Y., Wang, M.-X., & Zhou, H. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.06449 · Cited by 55
“…policy gradient [82–84], aligning model behaviors with human preferences or task-specific rewards, as exemplified by RLHF [68, 85–88] and RLAIF [89, 90] Beyond alignment, RL has recently proven effective in enhancing model reasoning capabilities on challenging tasks, such as mathematical reasoning…”
Dahlgren Lindström, A., Methnani, L., Krause, L., Ericson, P., de Rituerto de Troya, Í. M., Coelho Mollo, D., & Dobbe, R. (2025) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-025-09837-2 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
“Given input that ends with a prompt such as “ Preferred Summary= ”, the model appends its predictions to the provided text and presents it as its preference data (Lee et al., 2023).”
InfluentialBeyond Model Collapse: Scaling Up with Synthesized Data Requires VerificationPreprint
Feng, Y., Dohmatob, E., Yang, P., Charton, F., & Kempe, J. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.07515 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
“However, Yang et al. (2024) ● later found that using better prompts (self-improve) that direct harmful or harmless responses can surpass RLAIF.”
LooGLE: Can Long-Context Language Models Understand Long Contexts?
Li, J., Wang, M., Zheng, Z., & Zhang, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.859 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Inference-Time Text-to-Video Alignment with Diffusion Latent Beam Search
Oshima, Y., Suzuki, M., Matsuo, Y., & Furuta, H. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.19252 · Cited by 51
Improving Dynamic Object Interactions in Text-to-Video Generation with AI Feedback
Furuta, H., Zen, H., Schuurmans, D., Faust, A., Matsuo, Y., Liang, P., & Yang, S. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.02617 · Cited by 51
“In contrast, a recent study in LLMs (Zhang et al., 2024a) has argued that generative reward modeling can benefit from several advantages of LLMs and achieves better performance.”
InfluentialImprove LLM-as-a-Judge Ability as a General Ability
Yu, J., Sun, S.-N., Hu, X.-H., Yan, J.-X., Yu, K.-D., & Li, X.-L. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.11689 · Cited by 50
“Consequently, developing an effective judge model and leveraging AI-generated preferences for automated preference labeling to do reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) (Lee et al., 2023) is a crucial research direction.”
Antigen-Specific Antibody Design via Direct Energy-based Preference Optimization
Zhou, X., Xue, D., Chen, R., Zheng, Z., Wang, L., & Gu, Q. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.16576 · Cited by 50
“Reinforcement learning has been introduced to learning from human/AI feedback to large language models, such as RLHF (Ouyang et al., 2022) and RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023).”
A Critical Evaluation of AI Feedback for Aligning Large Language Models
Sharma, A., Keh, S. S., Mitchell, E., Finn, C., Arora, K., & Kollar, T. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.12366 · Cited by 50
“Given the high cost of data collection as well as the high level of disagreement among human annotators, many works such as Bai et al. (2022) and Lee et al. (2023) have replaced the human annotators in both the SFT and RLHF stages with strong language model annotators such as GPT-4 (Achiam et al.,…”
video-SALMONN 2: Captioning-Enhanced Audio-Visual Large Language Models
Tang, C., Li, Y., Yang, Y., Zhuang, J., Sun, G.-Z., Li, W., Ma, Z.-J., & Zhang, C. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.15220 · Cited by 48
“Extending this direction, RL with AI feedback (Lee et al., 2023) adopts a cost-efficient framework by using model-generated feedback in place of human input, significantly reducing human involvement.”
User Intent Recognition and Satisfaction with Large Language Models: A User Study with ChatGPT
Bodonhelyi, A., Bozkir, E., Yang, S., Kasneci, E., & Kasneci, G. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.02136 · Cited by 48
On opportunities and challenges of large multimodal foundation models in education
Küchemann, S., Avila, K. E., Dinc, Y., Hortmann, C., Revenga, N., Ruf, V., Stausberg, N., Steinert, S., Fischer, F., Fischer, M., et al. (2025) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-025-00301-w · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Laminar: A Scalable Asynchronous RL Post-Training Framework
Sheng, G.-M., Tong, Y., Wan, B.-R., Zhang, W., Jia, C., Wu, X.-B., Wu, Y.-Q., Li, X., Zhang, C., Peng, Y.-H., et al. (2025) · European Conference on Computer Systems · doi:10.1145/3767295.3803580 · Cited by 47
“Reinforcement Learning (RL) for LLM post-training was first used to align models with human preferences, known as Re-inforcement Learning from Human Feedback [32–36].”
The open-source advantage in large language models (LLMs)
Manchanda, J., Boettcher, L., Westphalen, M., & Jasser, J. (2024) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01190-4 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
“Consequently, research has shifted toward optimizing training paradigms such as curriculum learning and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to improve efficiency without excessive computational expenditure [16].”
WildFeedback: Aligning LLMs With In-situ User Interactions And Feedback
Shi, T., Wang, Z., Yang, L.-Q., Lin, Y.-C., He, Z.-X., Wan, M.-T., Zhou, P., Jauhar, S., Chen, S.-H., Xia, S., et al. (2024) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.15549 · Cited by 46
“The DSAT criteria consist of negative feedback, revision, factual error, unrealistic expectation, no engagement, ignored, lower quality, insufficient detail, and style.”
MPO: Boosting LLM Agents with Meta Plan Optimization
Xiong, W.-M., Song, Y., Dong, Q.-X., Zhao, B., Song, F.-F., Wang, X., & Li, S.-J. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.02682 · Cited by 45
“While prior studies typically rely on reward models trained on human preference annotations (Bai et al., 2022a; Ouyang et al., 2022; Dubey et al., 2024) or advanced AI (Bai et al., 2022b; Lee et al., 2023) models to assess model outputs, these approaches have limitations.”
PoisonBench: Assessing Large Language Model Vulnerability to Data Poisoning
Fu, T., Sharma, M., Torr, P., Cohen, S. B., Krueger, D., & Barez, F. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.08811 · Cited by 45
“…alignment dimension is not available in the original preference dataset, an additional step is in need to discriminate y dw and y dl since they are not necessarily the chosen and rejected response in overall quality and the template from Lee et al. (2023b) can be used to prompt LLMs for annotation.”
Reinforcement Learning With LLMs Interaction for Distributed Diffusion Model Services
Du, H.-Y., Zhang, R.-C., Niyato, D., Kang, J., Xiong, Z.-H., Cui, S.-G., Shen, X.-M., & Kim, D. I. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2025.3584698 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“LLMs-empowered GAs can interpret and respond to complex natural language instructions, making them a versatile interface for a range of tasks, including evaluative ones [34], [35].”
Align Video Diffusion Model with Online Video-Centric Preference Optimization
Zhang, J.-C., Wu, J., Chen, W., Ji, Y., Xiao, X., Huang, W., & Han, K. (2024) · IEEE Workshop/Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61042.2026.00594 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
“Recently, the preference optimization [2, 15, 16, 18, 28, 36] represented by Reinforcement Learning with Human Feed-back (RLHF) has emerged as a standard technique in modern LLMs [1, 17].”
Personality Alignment of Large Language ModelsPreprint
Zhu, M.-J., Weng, Y.-X., Yang, L.-Y., & Zhang, Y. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.11779 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
FGAIF: Aligning Large Vision-Language Models with Fine-grained AI Feedback
Jing, L., & Du, X. (2024) · Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.05046 · Cited by 41
“Motivated by the fine-grained RL (Wu et al., 2023; Ramé et al., 2023; Jang et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023b; Wang et al., 2024) and AI-based RL (Lee et al., 2023; Bai et al., 2022) methods, we propose to align modalities in LVLMs with fine-grained AI feedback.”
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
Li, H., Dong, Q., Chen, J., Su, H., Zhou, Y., Ai, Q., Ye, Z., & Liu, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05579 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Mission Impossible: A Statistical Perspective on Jailbreaking LLMs
Su, J., Kempe, J., & Ullrich, K. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.01420 · Cited by 39
“Variants like RLAIF also have been proposed recently [21, 110].”
Data Poisoning in Deep Learning: A Survey
Zhao, P.-L., Zhu, W.-Y., Jiao, P.-F., Gao, D., & Wu, O. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.22759 · Cited by 38
“Preference alignment, typically implemented via Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), fine-tunes LLMs to align with human values and expected behaviors [140]–[142].”
Zhu, K.-Y., Xia, P., Li, Y., Zhu, H.-T., Wang, S., & Yao, H.-X. (2024) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.06141 · Cited by 38
“Preference fine-tuning in LVLMs generally involves two approaches: one aligns models based on human feed-back [1, 33], while the other uses feedback generated by AI [8, 20, 44, 45, 59, 61, 63, 64].”
Scalable Ranked Preference Optimization for Text-To-Image Generation
Karthik, S., Coskun, H., Akata, Z., Tulyakov, S., Ren, J., & Kag, A. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv51701.2025.01710 · Cited by 37
“While this has been studied in depth in the context of LLMs [5, 42], there have been only preliminary explorations in the context of T2I models [79, 86].”
Improving the Validity of Automatically Generated Feedback via Reinforcement Learning
Scarlatos, A., Smith, D., Woodhead, S., & Lan, A. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-64302-6_20 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
“This approach is similar to aligning LLMs with human [39] or AI [16] preferences.”
Enhancing Reinforcement Learning with Dense Rewards from Language Model Critic
Cao, M., Shu, L., Yu, L., Zhu, Y., Wichers, N., Liu, Y., & Meng, L. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.515 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
“Lee et al. (2023) employed an off-the-shelf LLM to create preference labels by comparing pairs of candidate responses.”
Unsupervised Visual Chain-of-Thought Reasoning via Preference Optimization
Zhao, K., Zhu, B., Sun, Q., & Zhang, H. L. (2025) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51701.2025.00222 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“To reduce reliance on human annotations, RLAIF [19] leverages pre-trained LLMs for preference label generation.”
Ma, Y., Ye, W., Cui, C., Zhang, H., Xing, S., Ke, F., Wang, J., Miao, C., Chen, J., Rezatofighi, H., et al. (2025) · IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW) · doi:10.1109/wacvw65960.2025.00114 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
“More recently, Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) [11] and blended human-AI feedback (RLHAIF) [88] extend scalability by incorporating AI-generated preference labels.”
Yao, Z., Parashar, A., Zhou, H., Jang, W., Ouyang, F.-Y., Yang, Z.-C., & Yu, H. (2024) · North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.13191 · Cited by 35
“…desired outcomes, enhancing their ability to follow instructions through different forms of feedback, such as human preference feedback (Ouyang et al., 2022), AI-generated preference feedback (Lee et al., 2023; Dubois et al., 2024), or fine-grained feedback (Wu et al., 2024; Lightman et al., 2023).”
Atlas-Chat: Adapting Large Language Models for Low-Resource Moroccan Arabic Dialect
Shang, G., Abdine, H., Khoubrane, Y., Mohamed, A., Abbahaddou, Y., Ennadir, S., Momayiz, I., Ren, X.-G., Moulines, É., Nakov, P., et al. (2024) · COLING Workshops · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.17912 · Cited by 35
“The models were then fine-tuned on Arabic instructions and aligned with Arabic values and culture using RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023).”
Yan, Y., Lou, X., Li, J., Zhang, Y., Xie, J., Yu, C., Wang, Y., Yan, D., & Shen, Y. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.15360 · Cited by 35
“More recently, researchers have begun using AI as annotators in what is known as RLAIF, claiming comparable or even superior performance to RLHF Lee et al. (2023); Bai et al. (2022b).”
Hybrid Preferences: Learning to Route Instances for Human vs. AI Feedback
Miranda, L. J. V., Wang, Y.-Z., Elazar, Y., Kumar, S., Pyatkin, V., Brahman, F., Smith, N. A., Hajishirzi, H., & Dasigi, P. (2024) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.19133 · Cited by 34
“Hence, we posit that obtaining high-quality and cost-efficient preference data involves finding the right combination of direct human and synthetic preferences from LMs.”
ProSec: Fortifying Code LLMs with Proactive Security Alignment
Xu, X.-Z., Su, Z., Guo, J., Zhang, K., Wang, Z.-T., & Zhang, X. (2024) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.12882 · Cited by 33
“Code LLMs can undergo multi-stage post-training processes based on human/AI feedback for further performance improvements (Lee et al., 2023; Shao et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2024a).”
DeLLMa: Decision Making Under Uncertainty with Large Language ModelsPreprint
Liu, O., Fu, D., Yogatama, D., & Neiswanger, W. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.02392 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
“This LLM-based ranking of items—where each item consists of an action and a particular instantation of states—is a procedure that can be broadly applied, and LLMs have a history of being successfully used for similar comparisons [24, 37].”
Better than Your Teacher: LLM Agents that learn from Privileged AI FeedbackPreprint
Choudhury, S., & Sodhi, P. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.05434 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“A scalable method for aligning language model using AI feedback (Lee et al., 2023).”
Gradient-Adaptive Policy Optimization: Towards Multi-Objective Alignment of Large Language Models
Li, C., Zhang, H., Xu, Y., Xue, H., Ao, X., & He, Q. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.01915 · Cited by 30
“To mitigate these issues, Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) (Christiano et al., 2017; Ouyang et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2023) has been proposed as a method to align LLM behavior with human values.”
Mask-DPO: Generalizable Fine-grained Factuality Alignment of LLMs
Gu, Y., Zhang, W.-W., Lyu, C., Lin, D.-H., & Chen, K. (2025) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.02846 · Cited by 30
Process-Supervised Reinforcement Learning for Code Generation
Ye, Y.-F., Zhang, T., Jiang, W., & Huang, H. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.01715 · Cited by 29
“In summary, our main con-141 tributions are as follows: 1) To the best of our knowledge, we present the first attempt to investigate process-supervised reinforcement learning in the realm of code syntactic and functional correctness in code gener-196 ation tasks, leveraging compiler feedback…”
Deng, Y., Zhao, X., Sun, H., Chen, Y., Wang, X., Xue, X., Liangning, L., Song, J., Hsieh, C., Hou, T., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-62308-6 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“In response, Bai et al. 34 – 36 introduced reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF), a novel approach that utilizes AI-generated feedback as a substitute for human labels.”
A Survey of Direct Preference Optimization: Datasets, Theories, Variants, and Applications
Xiao, W., Wang, Z., Gan, L., Zhao, S., Li, Z.-Y., Lei, R.-R., He, W., Luu, A. T., Chan, L., Jiang, H., et al. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2026.3704314 · Cited by 27
Multimodal Large Language Models Make Text-to-Image Generative Models Align Better
Wu, X., Huang, S.-H., Wang, G., Xiong, J., & Wei, F.-R. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.52202/079017-2584 · Cited by 27
“…AI-generated preference data as training supervise signal for Large Language Models (LLMs) alignment on Natural Language Processing domain [12, 2], we pose the following question: Can Multimodal Large Language Models act as a Human-Aligned Preference Annotator for Text-to-Image Generation?”
VideoAgent: Self-Improving Video Generation
Soni, A., Venkataraman, S., Chandra, A., Fischmeister, S., Liang, P., Dai, B., & Yang, S. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.10076 · Cited by 26
“Preference feedback from humans or other AI systems (Ouyang et al., 2022a; Lee et al., 2023; Kaufmann et al., 2023) are first collected to train a reward model to guide the LLM’s generation or do implicit policy optimization (Schulman et al., 2017; Rafailov et al., 2024).”
Imitating Language via Scalable Inverse Reinforcement Learning
Wulfmeier, M., Bloesch, M., Vieillard, N., Ahuja, A., Bornschein, J., Huang, S. H., Sokolov, A., Barnes, M., Desjardins, G., Bewley, A., et al. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.01369 · Cited by 26
“We finally add analysis of the implicitly learned rewards extracted from SFT data via IRL methods (which bring the potential downstream use to aid RLHF/RLAIF [46, 37] training stages).”
Wang, J.-Q., Ning, H.-S., Peng, Y., Wei, Q., Tesfai, D., Mao, W., Zhu, T., & Huang, R. (2024) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.10303 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“And JMLR [51] trains medical LLMs together with RAG to improve the model’s ability to process medical knowledge while reducing computational resources.”
SPO: Multi-Dimensional Preference Sequential Alignment With Implicit Reward Modeling
Lou, X., Zhang, J., Xie, J., Liu, L.-F., Yan, D., & Huang, K.-Q. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.12739 · Cited by 26
“Fine-tuning LLMs with one reward model is already notoriously challenging.”
Sankar, B. S., Gilliland, D., Rincon, J., Hermjakob, H., Yan, Y., Adam, I., Lemaster, G., Wang, D., Watson, K., Bui, A., et al. (2024) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering11100984 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“Therefore, careful design and implementation of data transformations and/or synthetic data generation techniques will ensure they preserve the statistical properties of the original data while also protecting privacy.”
- Authors
- Lee, H., Phatale, S., Mansoor, H., Mesnard, T., Ferret, J., Lu, K., Bishop, C., Hall, E., Carbune, V., Rastogi, A., & Prakash, S.
- ORCID
- Lu, Kellie
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2309.00267
- OpenAlex
- W4386437475
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 7
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- reinforcement learning from human feedback, reward modeling, large language models, human development, dialogue generation, summarization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review