The DOI matches its DataCite record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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.
Overview
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
Verification
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
Scaling 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 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.08361 · Cited by 9,550 · cited 1×
“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).”
ResultGoogle'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×
“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.”
MethodHierarchical Neural Story Generation
Fan, A., Lewis, M., & Dauphin, Y. (2018) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1082 · Cited by 1,266
Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators
Wang, P., Li, L., Chen, L., Cai, Z., Zhu, D., Lin, B., Cao, Y., Kong, L., Liu, Q., Liu, T., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.511 · Cited by 138
Research works printed but not linked: 44
- 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.
- 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, 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
Items 201–300 of 471
Tang, C., Li, Y., Yang, Y., Zhuang, J., Sun, G., Li, W., Ma, Z., & Zhang, C. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.06682 · Cited by 9
“Expanding on this, RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023) takes a cost-efficient approach by utilizing feedback generated automatically by models, reducing reliance on human involvement.”
Atoxia: Red-teaming Large Language Models with Target Toxic Answers
Du, Y., Li, Z., Cheng, P., Wan, X., & Gao, A. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-naacl.179 · Cited by 9
“The domain of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has been thoroughly explored in various studies to enhance the alignment of LLMs with human preferences (Stiennon et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022b; Lee et al., 2023).”
Zhang, F., Li, J., Li, Y.-C., Zhang, Z., Yu, Y., & Ye, D. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2025.3590731 · Cited by 14
“The knowledge is then represented as a potential function φ ( s ) by gathering LLM feedback over data samples, where we defer di ff erent variants for background knowledge representation to Section IV.”
Lu, J., An, S., Zhang, M., He, Y., Yin, D., & Sun, X. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.11811 · Cited by 3
“Additionally, inspired by self-updating alignment (Lee et al., 2023; Anthropic, 2022; Yuan et al., 2024), we develop a Iterative Preference Learning (IPL) strategy for self-rewarding prompt optimization.”
A Simple Yet Effective Method for Non-Refusing Context Relevant Fine-grained Safety Steering in LLMs
Ghosh, S., Bhattacharjee, A., Ziser, Y., & Parisien, C. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1781 · Cited by 1
“…amounts of human-annotated or synthetically generated training data and require substantial computational resources to implement Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) (Bai et al., 2022), as well as AI Feedback (RLAIF) (Lee et al., 2024c) and supervised fine-tuning (SFT), among others.”
Algorithmic Adjudication and Constitutional AI—The Promise of A Better AI Decision Making Future?
Dawson, A. (2024) · SMU Science and Technology Law Review · doi:10.25172/smustlr.27.1.3 · Cited by 10
Li, Z., Wu, X., Du, H., Liu, F., Nghiem, H. T., & Shi, G. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.02189 · Cited by 195
“RLHF [14, 105] integrates human or model feed-back for alignment.”
AI Agents Push Humans Out of the LoopPreprint
Mitchell, M., Ghosh, A., & Passi, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.23642 · Cited by 14
“…– such as strategic friction, well-considered approval design, behavioral monitoring – that preserve the conditions for effective oversight; and deployers must institute organizational protocols – such as trainings and breaks – that protect the cognitive capacities oversight requires over time.”
Who's Your Judge? On the Detectability of LLM-Generated Judgments
Li, D.-W., Tan, Z., Zhao, C., Jiang, B., Huang, B.-X., Ma, P., Alnaibari, A., Shu, K., & Liu, H. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.25154 · Cited by 9
Dropping Just a Handful of Preferences Can Change Top Large Language Model Rankings
Huang, J. Y., Shen, Y., Wei, D., & Broderick, T. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.11847 · Cited by 9
“Such platforms rely on crowd-sourced pairwise battles and human votes to compute model rankings (Lee et al., 2023; Bai et al., 2022).”
Protein Inverse Folding From Structure Feedback
Xu, J.-D., Gao, Z., Zhou, X., Hu, J., Cheng, X., Song, L., Chen, G.-Y., Heng, P.-A., & Qiu, J.-Z. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03028 · Cited by 9
“This approach leverages another LLM to predict the reward of a target model’s response and subsequently fine-tunes the target model based on this AI-generated feedback [4, 24].”
OASST-ETC Dataset: Alignment Signals from Eye-tracking Analysis of LLM Responses
López-Cardona, Á., Idesis, S., Barreda-Ángeles, M., Abadal, S., & Arapakis, I. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3725840 · Cited by 5
“Recent research has explored various forms of RLAIF [17, 50, 55, 57, 98], expanding reward modeling’s scope to include AI-generated feedback and emphasizing the importance of accurately capturing user preferences.”
Open-Ethical AI: Advancements in Open-Source Human-Centric Neural Language Models
Sicari, S., Moreno, J. F. C., Rizzardi, A., & Coen‐Porisini, A. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3703454 · Cited by 13
“Beyond CAI, other recent works related to RLAIF are presented in [147, 157, 251, 320].”
RNR: Teaching Large Language Models to Follow Roles and RulesPreprint
Wang, K., Bukharin, A., Jiang, H., Yin, Q., Wang, Z., Zhao, T., Shang, J., Zhang, C., Yin, B., Li, X., et al. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.13733 · Cited by 7
“The core of IFT lies in the generation and selection of instruction data (Chen et al., 2024; Chung et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2023; Honovich et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022a; Zhou et al., 2023a), which leverage existing LLMs like InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022) and ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022) to…”
Large Language Model for Low-Carbon Energy Transition: Roles and Challenges
Cheng, Y., Zhou, X., Zhao, H. Q., Gu, J., Wang, X., & Zhao, J. (2024) · Power System and Green Energy Conference (PSGEC) · doi:10.1109/psgec62376.2024.10721191 · Cited by 8
“Furthermore, methods like RLHF [15], RLAIF [16], etc., can also be incorporated into the fine-tuning training of LLM, further strengthening its safety and professional expression performance.”
Bayesian WeakS-to-Strong from Text Classification to GenerationPreprint
Cui, Z.-Y., Zhang, Z.-Y., Wu, W., Sun, G.-Z., & Zhang, C. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.03199 · Cited by 9
“Due to the high cost of obtaining human preference data, there is now exploration into using LLMs to simulate human preferences, provide feedback, and finetune models [13, 4, 10].”
Extracting Heuristics from Large Language Models for Reward Shaping in Reinforcement Learning
Bhambri, S., Bhattacharjee, A., Kalwar, D., Guan, L., Liu, H., & Kambhampati, S. (2024) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.15194 · Cited by 9
“…to automatic reward learning [22, 40], multi-agent domains [11, 49], meta-learning [63], etc. Primarily, the sources of obtaining and/or learning intrinsic rewards includes domain experts hand-engineering the rewards [57, 37], via providing feedback [34], or via providing expert demonstrations [2].”
Reward Generalization in RLHF: A Topological Perspective
Qiu, T., Zeng, F.-Z., Ji, J.-M., Yan, D., Wang, K.-L., Zhou, J.-Y., Han, Y., Dai, J., Pan, X.-H., & Yang, Y.-D. (2024) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.820 · Cited by 9
Typhoon: Thai Large Language Models
Pipatanakul, K., Jirabovonvisut, P., Manakul, P., Sripaisarnmongkol, S., Patomwong, R., Chokchainant, P., & Tharnpipitchai, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.13951 · Cited by 9
Diagnosis Before Recovery: Turning Agent Failures into Selective Self-CorrectionPreprint
Wang, P., Hu, Y., Wang, H., Lv, Z., Zhang, X., Li, J., Yang, J.-M., Wu, W., & Tong, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.11772 · Cited by 8
“Other lines use reinforcement learning or preference optimization to update model behavior [4, 8, 32, 38, 49, 51, 59, 61, 79, 86], including multi-turn or device-control agents [7, 55, 97].”
A Comprehensive Review of Generative Physical Artificial Intelligence
Gaba, S., Rana, K., Sai, S., Chamola, V., & Niyato, D. T. (2026) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2026.3671268 · Cited by 13
“Each step demands real-time sensorimotor integration, safety monitoring, and failure recovery capabilities.”
Chen, X.-S., Zhou, S.-H., Liang, K., Yuan, D.-Y., Chen, H.-Y., Sun, X., Meng, L., & Liu, X.-W. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.13170 · Cited by 8
“However, the resulting CoT inadvertently inherits biases from the LLMs.”
Collaborate, Deliberate, Evaluate: How LLM Alignment Affects Coordinated Multi-Agent Outcomes
Nath, A., Graff, C., & Krishnaswamy, N. (2026) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.65109/uqpo8536 · Cited by 6
“We experimentally show that interventions that are robust to action modification correlate with productive belief revision in multi-agent settings, benefit common ground convergence, and improve task outcomes.”
SageLM: A Multi-aspect and Explainable Large Language Model for Speech JudgementPreprint
Ge, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, X., Li, B., Ma, X., Wang, C., Ye, K., Du, Y., Zhang, L., Huang, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.20916 · Cited by 6
“To address this, the LLMs-as-a-judge paradigm leverages powerful models such as”
Scalable Valuation of Human Feedback through Provably Robust Model Alignment
Fujisawa, M., Adachi, M., & Osborne, M. A. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.17859 · Cited by 8
“Empirical studies report that preference datasets often contain 20–40% noise [35, 62], with performance degrading sharply under modest increases in noise.”
Harland, H., Dazeley, R., Vamplew, P., Senaratne, H., Nakisa, B., & Cruz, F. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.23630 · Cited by 8
“For example, the Constitutional AI [Bai et al., 2022] and Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback [Lee et al., 2023] algorithms replace the human in the training loop with another AI model to enable self-improvement with fewer instances of human feedback.”
Can DPO Learn Diverse Human Values? A Theoretical Scaling Law
Im, S., & Li, S. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.52202/085713-0985 · Cited by 8
“This suggests that similar implications should be expected for other preference learning methods.”
MoDiPO: text-to-motion alignment via AI-feedback-driven Direct Preference Optimization
Pappa, M., Collorone, L., Ficarra, G., Spinelli, I., & Galasso, F. (2024) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.03803 · Cited by 8
“Additionally, [15] demonstrated through extensive experiments that RLAIF (Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback) can be comparable to, or even outperform, RLHF.”
ConfusionPrompt: Practical Private Inference for Online Large Language Models
Mai, P.-H., Yan, R., Yang, Y.-J., Ye, R., Liu, W., & Pang, Y. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2026.3734014 · Cited by 8
“Following the spirit of Reinforcement Learning from Human/AI Feedback (RLHF/RLAIF) [8, 25], we train a decomposer that optimizes the aforementioned two objectives simultaneously.”
Suhono (2023) · International Journal of Community Engagement Payungi · doi:10.58879/ijcep.v3i2.36 · Cited by 8
SYNFAC-EDIT: Synthetic Imitation Edit Feedback for Factual Alignment in Clinical Summarization
Mishra, P., Yao, Z., Vashisht, P., Ouyang, F., Wang, B., Mody, V. D., & Yu, H. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.13919 · Cited by 7
“In response to these limitations, recent research has explored learning paradigms incorporating human feedback, such as RLHF (Ouyang et al., 2022; Ziegler et al., 2020; Stiennon et al., 2020b), RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023), RRHF (Yuan et al., 2023), and RAFT (Teed and Deng, 2020).”
Silence the Judge: Reinforcement Learning with Self-Verifier via Latent Geometric Clustering
Zhang, N., Ma, W.-T., Ma, Z., Xu, J., Gao, J.-C., Hao, J.-H., He, R.-Q., & Xu, J.-W. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.08427 · Cited by 7
“In early RLHF(Ziegler et al., 2019; Stien-non et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2023b) practices, PPO (Proximal Policy Optimization)(Schulman et al., 2017) was the core algo-rithm, stabilizing training through trust region constraints.”
Knowledge-Driven Multi-Turn Jailbreaking on Large Language ModelsPreprint
Li, S., He, R., Jia, X., Wang, J., & Fu, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.05445 · Cited by 8
“To ensure LLMs remain helpful and harmless, implementing safety alignment mechanisms is crucial [5,27].”
DRAFT-RL: Multi-Agent Chain-of-Draft Reasoning for Reinforcement Learning-Enhanced LLMsPreprint
Li, Y., Liu, M., Wang, H., Zhang, Y., Ma, Y., & Tan, W. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.20468 · Cited by 1
“Recent work has extended this to use AI feedback instead of human feedback (RLAIF) Lee et al. [2023], Bai et al. [2022] for greater scalability.”
InfluentialChen, Y.-K., Zhang, X.-N., Zhang, Y., Li, Y.-N., Zou, H. P., Miao, C.-Y., Zhang, W.-Z., Liu, X., & Yu, P. S. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.22095 · Cited by 7
“Key techniques include reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) [109, 23], reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) [61], and direct preference optimization (DPO) [46].”
Length-Controlled Margin-Based Preference Optimization without Reference ModelPreprint
Li, G., Xia, T., Chang, Y., & Wu, Y. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14643 · Cited by 7
“Alternative approaches, such as reinforcement learning with language model feed-back (RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023)), may also serve as feasible substitutes for human feedback (Bai et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2023).”
System-2 Mathematical Reasoning via Enriched Instruction TuningPreprint
Cai, H., Yang, Y., & Li, Z. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.16964 · Cited by 8
“As illustrated in Fig 2, given an instruction-response pair from any existing human-annotated mathematical dataset, our method EIT (standing for E nriched I nstruction T uning) first prompts an LLM to generate a plan decomposing the complex instruction into a sequence of lower-level objectives.”
Artificial Intelligence for Software Architecture: Literature Review and the Road AheadPreprint
Bucaioni, A., Weyssow, M., He, J.-D., Lyu, Y., & Lo, D. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.04334 · Cited by 7
“Finally, Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) [1, 13] will enhance AI-driven SA tools by aligning LLM recommendations with architect preferences.”
A Logical Fallacy-Informed Framework for Argument Generation
Mouchel, L., Paul, D., Cui, S., West, R., Bosselut, A., & Faltings, B. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.374 · Cited by 7
Song, M., & Zheng, M. (2026) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.11027 · Cited by 8
“The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm (Zheng et al., 2023; Chiang et al., 2024), together with Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF; Lee et al., 2023), now underpins model ranking, reward model training, and alignment pipelines across the field.”
Xi, M., Lv, S., Jin, Y.-C., Cheng, G.-J., Wang, N.-B., Li, Y., & Yin, J.-Z. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.10008 · Cited by 6
“Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) [20] reduces reliance on human annotators by using LLMs as preference labelers, demonstrating competitive performance in tasks like summarization and harmlessness.”
Adaptive Preference Optimization with Uncertainty-aware Utility Anchor
Wang, X., Jia, Z.-X., Li, J.-Q., Liu, Q., & Zheng, Z.-L. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.10515 · Cited by 6
“Building on this, Reinforcement Learning with AI Feed-back (RLAIF) (Lee et al., 2023)”
AgriEval: A Comprehensive Chinese Agricultural Benchmark for Large Language ModelsPreprint
Yan, L., Wang, H., Tang, C., Liu, H., Sun, T., Liu, L., Guan, Y., & Jiang, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21773 · Cited by 5
“To address this gap, several domain-specific benchmarks have emerged: CMD (Wang et al. 2023) for medicine, LexEval (Li et al. 2024a) for legal reasoning, and Golden Touchstone (Lee et al. 2023) for financial analysis.”
Gu, H.-R., Wang, H.-D., Mei, Y., Zhang, M.-J., & Jin, Y.-C. (2025) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.16628 · Cited by 6
“, the linear scalarization method fails to distinguish between D 1 and D 2 in Fig.”
Influencing Humans to Conform to Preference Models for RLHFPreprint
Hatgis-Kessell, S., Knox, W. B., Booth, S., & Stone, P. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.06416 · Cited by 7
“While this paper focuses on sequential decision-making tasks, the underlying ideas about how people can be influenced to conform to different preference models through interface design and other interventions have broader implications in RLHF (and, perhaps, RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023)).”
ISR-DPO: Aligning Large Multimodal Models for Videos by Iterative Self-Retrospective DPO
Ahn, D., Choi, Y., Kim, S., Yu, Y., Kang, D., & Choi, J. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i2.32166 · Cited by 10
“To evaluate the impact of visual context on judgment quality, we assess the correspondence between AI models’ preferences and those of human annotators, following Lee et al. (2023).”
Enhancing Maritime Trajectory Forecasting via H3 Index and Causal Language Modelling (CLM)Preprint
Drapier, N., Chetouani, A., & Chateigner, A. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.09596 · Cited by 5
“…of correct versus incorrect trajectories, techniques such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) [49, 50, 51, 52, 53], Reinforcement Learning with Artificial Intelligence Feedback (RLAIF) [54], or Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) [55] might offer promising avenues for improvement.”
Self-Renewal Prompt Optimizing with Implicit Reasoning
Liang, Z., Chen, B., Ran, Z., Wang, Z., Dai, H.-F., Ma, Y., Gao, D., Cai, X., & Yang, L. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.171 · Cited by 2
“The first focuses on output alignment, which involves supervised fine-tuning (SFT) followed by reinforcement learning such as RLHF (Ouyang et al., 2022), RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023; Bai et al., 2022), and DPO (Rafailov et al., 2024).”
ACES: Generating Diverse Programming Puzzles with with Autotelic Generative ModelsPreprint
Pourcel, J., Colas, C., Molinaro, G., Oudeyer, P., & Teodorescu, L. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.10692 · Cited by 13
“Following the recent trend in learning from AI feedback [Bai et al., 2022, Lee et al., 2023] and using LLM-as-judge methods [Zheng et al., 2024], recent work has used LLM responses as models of interestingness [Zhang et al., 2023, Klissarov et al., 2023, Sachdeva et al., 2024] within RL, while…”
PReMISE: Policy Rubrics as Measurement Specifications for LLM Judges
Roy, S., Pujari, R., Kumarage, T., Peris, C., Gupta, R., Rumshisky, A., Natarajan, P., & Saligrama, V. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.30803 · Cited by 5
“…post-training literature on AI-feedback, deliberative alignment, and rubric-derived rewards for non-verifiable objectives (Bai et al., 2022b; Lee et al., 2024; Guan et al., 2024; Srivastava et al., 2025; Jian et al., 2025; Jia et al., 2025; Montero et al., 2026; Bhattarai et al., 2026; Yu…”
Jiang, J., Cai, C.-L., Park, C., Shen, J., Kim, S. H., Li, J., & Wang, Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.20398 · Cited by 5
“Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a crucial technique for aligning LLM behavior with human preferences and task-specific objectives [33, 1, 3, 22].”
OmniDiagram: Advancing Unified Diagram Code Generation via Visual Interrogation Reward
Yang, H., Zhao, X., Liu, X.-X., Jiang, F., & Zhu, Y. (2026) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.05514 · Cited by 5
“While Reinforcement Learning from Human Feed-back (RLHF) has been pivotal for alignment, recent trends shift towards RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023) and environmental feedback to improve scalability.”
Implicit Turn-Wise Policy Optimization for Proactive User-LLM InteractionPreprint
Wang, H., Chen, Y., Luo, L., Zhang, B., Wen, E. D., & Li, P. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.23550 · Cited by 4
“As to off-the-shelf LLM judges, they introduce prohibitive latency for online RL optimization [26, 27] and often suffer from evaluation bias [28].”
AudioRouter: Data Efficient Audio Understanding via RL based Dual Reasoning
Chen, L., Chen, H.-K., Cai, Y., Li, S., Ye, Q., & Wang, Y.-W. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.10439 · Cited by 5
“Foundational methods such as RLHF (Ouyang et al., 2022), RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023), and GRPO (Shao et al., 2024) optimize language models through preference based rewards or structured advantages, while more recent frameworks such as ReAct (Yao et al., 2022), Reflexion (Shinn et al., 2023), and Tree of Thought (Yao et…”
Generative Adversarial Post-Training Mitigates Reward Hacking in Live Human-AI Music Interaction
Wu, Y., Brade, S., Ma, T., Fowler, T.-J., Yang, E., Banar, B., Courville, A. C., Jaques, N., & Huang, C. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.17879 · Cited by 5
“A common mitigation constrains deviation from the pretrained model by adding a Kullback-Leibler (KL) penalty to the training objective (Jaques et al., 2017; Ouyang et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2023).”
SERL: Self-Examining Reinforcement Learning on Open-Domain
Ou, W., Zheng, Y.-Z., Sun, S., Zhang, W., Dong, B.-H., Zhu, H.-C., Huang, R.-H., Yu, G., Yan, P.-W., & Qiao, Y. (2025) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.07922 · Cited by 5
“Reliance on external reward mechanisms: Earlier methodologies, such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) (Stiennon et al. 2020) and Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) (Lee et al. 2023), have demonstrated effectiveness in improving model capabilities across general domains by leveraging fee…”
Aligning Large Language Models via Fully Self-Synthetic Data
Yin, S.-J., Wei, Z., Zhu, X.-Y., Chen, W.-L., & Meng, Y. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.06652 · Cited by 5
“This technique is not only employed for evaluation but also for training reward models and curating data, as mentioned in prior works (Lee et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2024a; Li et al., 2024b; Wei et al., 2025b).”
Multilingual visual question answering for visually impaired people
Pal, R., Kar, S., Prasad, D. K., & Sekh, A. A. (2025) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-025-00482-8 · Cited by 3
“Through the use of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) [37] and the LLaVa Large Language Model [38], Arabic Quest allows users to ask image-based queries and get answers.”
The Policy Cliff: A Theoretical Analysis of Reward-Policy Maps in Large Language Models
Xu, X.-C. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.20150 · Cited by 5
“…especially when fine-tuned using reinforcement learning (RL) such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) (see e.g., Ouyang et al. (2022); Bai et al. (2022); Lee et al. (2023)) or Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) (see e.g., Guo et al. (2025); Su et al. (2025)).”
A Robotic AI Algorithm for Fusing Generative Large Models in Agriculture Internet of Things
Hou, G., Niu, R., Chen, H.-H., Wang, Y.-C., Zhu, Z., Zhang, J.-Y., Ma, Y., & Li, T. (2025) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2024.3516729 · Cited by 5
“As shown in Table II, the DSP-YOLOv7-CA model from [18] has a detection accuracy of 98.86% for unob-structed small tomato bunches.”
InfluentialThe Geometry of Queries: Query-Based Innovations in Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Healthcare QAPreprint
Yang, E., Amar, J., Lee, J. H., Kumar, B., & Jia, Y. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.18044 · Cited by 3
“This comprehensive analysis, coupled with the increasing recognition of LLMs as auto-evaluation tools Lee et al. (2023), supports the validity of our answerability model for filtering irrelevant questions.”
Zhang, C., Tang, C., Chong, D., Shi, K., Tang, G., Jiang, F., & Li, H.-Z. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.20215 · Cited by 5
“Synthetic Preference Data Several recent approaches propose to curate preference data through AI feedback (Bai et al., 2022b; Lee et al., 2023; Pace et al., 2024; Guo et al., 2024), which is an efficient way to obtain large-scale preference data than using human annotators.”
Unveiling the ethical positions of conversational AIs: a study on OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Bard
McGrath, Q. P. (2024) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00433-6 · Cited by 5
“Lee et al. [26] found this process to yield human-level performance.”
Liu, Z.-L., Gou, Y.-H., Chen, K., Hong, L.-Q., Gao, J.-H., Mi, F., Zhang, Y., Li, Z.-G., Jiang, X., Liu, Q., et al. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.00557 · Cited by 5
“RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023) simulates human preferences via LLMs, while DPO (Rafailov et al., 2023) directly optimizes LLMs with human preferences.”
Challenging the Evaluator: LLM Sycophancy Under User Rebuttal
Kim, S. W., & Khashabi, D. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.1222 · Cited by 6
Data Analysis in the Era of Generative AI
Inala, J. P., Wang, C., Drucker, S., Ramos, G., Dibia, V., Riche, N., Brown, D., Marshall, D., & Gao, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.18475 · Cited by 4
“This technique is called RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023) as it involves using AI feedback, such as simulated human agents, to enhance models (especially to improve smaller models using feedback from larger models).”
Debate Training Reduces Reward Hacking in RLAIF
Kenton, Z., Janzer, L., Greig, R., Teh, T. H., Tyshchuk, K., Brown-Cohen, J., Edwards, H., Rajamanoharan, S., Siegel, N., Jaques, N., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.17776 · Cited by 4
“Reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) (Bai et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2023), in which an LLM judge provides the reward signal for RL training, has the potential to become a dominant paradigm for post-training LLMs across tasks without ground-truth labels, from safety and alignment to…”
APPO: Agentic Procedural Policy OptimizationPreprint
Wang, X.-C., Ma, Z.-Y., Wang, Y., Ji, Y., Yang, S., Chen, G.-H., Wang, P.-K., & Chu, X. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.12384 · Cited by 4
“This progress is largely driven by Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), which enables policy optimization using sparse outcome-level supervision [18, 60, 34, 58, 61, 5].”
Ramos, M. M., Alves, D. M., & Martins, A. F. T. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.12227 · Cited by 4
Sparking Scientific Creativity via LLM-Driven Interdisciplinary Inspiration
Kargupta, P., Mehri, S., Hakkani-Tur, D., & Han, J.-W. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.12226 · Cited by 4
“This reduces cognitive load by aligning AI behaviors with user expectations and improving task efficiency.”
Yang, X.-C., Fang, H., Kong, J.-W., Mao, Y., Chen, B., & Xia, S.-T. (2026) · European Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.07048 · Cited by 4
“Existing approaches such as RLHF [39] and RLAIF [21] require costly construction of negative samples and often struggle to capture the model’s internal response patterns and latent hallucination directions, thus failing to effectively generate hallucination-targeted negatives.”
Ghasemi, M., & Crowley, M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.08092 · Cited by 4
“Newer methods like Constitutional AI (Bai et al., 2022b) and RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023) try to fix this by using AI to generate better feedback.”
Position: Capability Control Should be a Separate Goal From AlignmentPreprint
Siddiqui, S. A., Triantafillou, E., Krueger, D., & Weller, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.05164 · Cited by 4
“A notable example among such capabilities is in-context learning —i.e., the ability to learn new tasks solely from examples provided within the context window (Lu et al., 2023).”
InfluentialCamPilot: Improving Camera Control in Video Diffusion Model with Efficient Camera Reward FeedbackPreprint
Ge, W., Shen, G., Feng, J., Wang, L., Lu, H., Tian, X., Tao, X., & Chen, Y.-C. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.16214 · Cited by 4
“Recent works [25, 28, 32, 33, 51, 59] have introduced Reward Feedback Learning (ReFL) for diffusion models to further refine the model according to task-specific objectives, drawing inspiration from the Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) [12, 22, 53] of large language models (LLMs).”
AWPO: Enhancing Tool-Use of Large Language Models through Explicit Integration of Reasoning RewardsPreprint
Lin, Z.-H., Wang, X.-H., Yang, H.-X., Chai, J.-J., Cao, J., Yin, G.-J., Lin, W., & He, R. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.19126 · Cited by 4
Persona-Aware Alignment Framework for Personalized Dialogue Generation
Li, G., Liu, X., Wu, Z., & Dai, X. (2025) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl.a.57
“For example, techniques such as RLHF (Ouyang et al., 2022), RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023), DPO (Rafailov et al., 2023), and Decision Transformer (Chen et al., 2021) have been proposed to direct LLMs towards desired outcomes.”
How Well Can Preference Optimization Generalize Under Noisy Feedback?
Im, S., & Li, Y.-X. (2025) · Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.01458 · Cited by 4
Zhu, R.-Y., Wang, Y.-H., Jiang, T.-Q., Liang, J., & Wang, T. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.08967 · Cited by 4
“Compared with pre-or post-training alignment of LLMs [31, 22], model steering represents an attractive alternative that dynamically modifies latent activations during inference [43, 27, 52, 48, 2, 21, 14, 11, 37, 45, 28, 1].”
InfluentialGradEscape: A Gradient-Based Evader Against AI-Generated Text DetectorsPreprint
Meng, W., Fan, S., Wei, C., Chen, M., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., & Chen, W. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.08188
Fodor and Pylyshyn's Legacy: Still No Human-like Systematic Compositionality in Neural NetworksPreprint
Woydt, T., Willig, M., Wüst, A., Helff, L., Stammer, W., Rothkopf, C. A., & Kersting, K. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.01820 · Cited by 4
“Recently, important breakthroughs in this direction have been made in RL training of language reasoning models [Stiennon et al., 2020, Ouyang et al., 2022, Bai et al., 2022, Lee et al., 2023, DeepSeek-AI et al., 2025].”
Halloran, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.23634 · Cited by 2
“…on DPO, one of the most widely used preference alignment algorithms for LLMs. Leveraging MCP-FBAs , future work will explore other preference alignment algorithms (e.g., RLHF/RLAIF [30]) to determine if alternate offline alignment schemes produce limited refusal improvements, as we saw with DPO.”
EcoLoRA: Communication-Efficient Federated Fine-Tuning of Large Language Models
Liu, H., Wen, R.-Y., Nair, S., Liu, J., Lou, W., Zhang, C., Yeoh, W., Vorobeychik, Y., & Zhang, N. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.02001 · Cited by 4
“Alignment with human preferences is a crucial step in LLM post-training (Lee et al., 2023).”
Generative AI as an Interface Between Farmers and AI Algorithms: Opportunities and Challenges
Zhang, W., & Yadav, A. (2025) · Journal of the Indian Institute of Science · doi:10.1007/s41745-025-00490-8 · Cited by 5
“89 Two major approaches for Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF): Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) 90 and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) 91 could be utilized.”
Tuning-Free Personalized Alignment via Trial-Error-Explain In-Context Learning
Cho, H. J., Sharma, K., Jedema, N., Ribeiro, L. F. R., Moschitti, A., Krishnan, R., & May, J. (2025) · North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.08972 · Cited by 4
“Large language models (LLMs) are biased towards generic outputs as they are trained to align to an aggregate preference to be generally useful (Pad-makumar and He, 2024; Rafailov et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023).”
Evaluating the Explainability of Large Language Models for Ethical Decision Making
Miguel, G. S. S., Griffith, H., Silva, J., & Rathore, H. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics · doi:10.1109/icce63647.2025.10929891 · Cited by 4
“The prompting styles employed within this analysis were motivated by those utilized in [5].”
Fine-Grained Guidance for Retrievers: Leveraging LLMs' Feedback in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Liu, Y., Hu, X., Zhang, S.-Y., Chen, J.-Y., Wu, F., & Wu, F. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.03957 · Cited by 4
Elephant in the Room: Unveiling the Impact of Reward Model Quality in Alignment
Liu, Y., Yi, X.-Y., Chen, X.-K., Yao, J., Yi, J.-W., Zan, D.-G., Liu, Z., Xie, X., & Ho, T.-Y. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.19024 · Cited by 4
“Following RLHF, various sophisticated alignment methods [Yuan et al., 2023, Dong et al., 2023, Lee et al., 2023] have emerged, targeting to address RLHF’s inherent limitations, e.g. , instability, difficulty in convergence, and sensitivity to hyperparameters [Wolf et al., 2023, Casper et al.,…”
InfluentialSymmetric Reinforcement Learning Loss for Robust Learning on Diverse Tasks and Model Scales
Byun, J.-S., & Perrault, A. (2024) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.17618 · Cited by 4
“RLHF (Ouyang et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2023b) and RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023a; Bai et al., 2022; Byun et al., 2024) po-1 Content: My Grandma and my aunt (her daughter-in-law) haven’t spoken to each other in years… Summary: Some summary = > Figure 1.”
InfluentialZweiger, A., Pari, J., Guo, H., Akyürek, E., Kim, Y., & Agrawal, P. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 3
“Methods such as RLAIF [56, 57] and self-rewarding language models [58, 59] use the model itself to provide reward signals, leveraging the observation that judging outputs is often easier than generating them [60].”
Autonomous Evaluation and Refinement of Digital Agents
Pan, J., Zhang, Y., Tomlin, N., Zhou, Y., Levine, S., & Suhr, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.06474 · Cited by 3
“Recently, there has been renewed interest in methods for improving policies at training (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2023; Abdulhai et al., 2023) or inference (Shinn et al., 2023; Yao et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2024) time without human supervision.”
RLHS: Mitigating Misalignment in RLHF with Hindsight Simulation
Liang, K., Hu, H., Liu, R., Griffiths, T. L., & Fisac, J. F. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.08617 · Cited by 3
“The resulting fine-tuned AI models show superior alignment with users’ underlying utility.”
Hippocrates: An Open-Source Framework for Advancing Large Language Models in Healthcare
Acikgoz, E. C., İnce, O. B., Bench, R., Boz, A. A., Kesen, İ., Erdem, A., & Erdem, E. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.16621 · Cited by 3
“Notably, for the first time in the medical domain, our approach incorporates preference learning from medical professionals into the model development process, utilizing RLAIF [22] and GPT4 for annotating preferences.”
InfluentialMonitoring and Discovering Reward Hacking with Internal Representations during LLM EvaluationsPreprint
Bergen, L., Bhalla, U., Lee, A., Widawsky, B., Nasvytis, L., Watts, C., Boppana, S., Baskaran, S., Hazra, D., Byun, M. J., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.19101 · Cited by 3
“…Learning (RL) has emerged as a powerful tool for teaching hard tasks to LLMs (Christiano et al., 2017; Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2024; Lambert, 2025), especially in verifiable settings (Shao et al., 2025; Rastogi et al., 2025; Khatri et al., 2025; Chen et al.,…”
DataEvolver: Self-Evolving Multi-Agent Data Construction for Text-Rich Image GenerationPreprint
Yan, S., Gao, Y., Wang, Y., Mao, D., & Wang, A. F. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.31537 · Cited by 4
“…[Schulman et al., 2017], and DPO [Rafailov et al., 2023] optimize model behavior with human feedback or preference data, while Constitutional AI [Bai et al., 2022] and RLAIF [Lee et al., 2023] reduce the reliance on direct human annotation by using AI-generated feedback or rule-based principles.”
Helpful, Harmless, Honest? RLHF as Survey Design and Content Moderation
D'Alonzo, S., Kreuter, F., & Booth, S. (2026) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3805689.3806444 · Cited by 1
“The first is reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF), which keeps the same basic structure of learning a reward model from preferences, but replaces human annotators with an AI system [37].”
Large Language Models Hack Rewards, and SocietyPreprint
Liu, W., Mou, X., Yan, H., Wei, Z.-Y., & He, Y.-L. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.04075 · Cited by 3
Confidence Before Answering: A Paradigm Shift for Efficient LLM Uncertainty Estimation
Li, C.-C., Wu, J.-C., Zhang, H.-H., Chen, Z.-S., An, G., Qiu, J.-X., Wang, X., & Tian, Q. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.05881 · Cited by 3
IAPO: Information-Aware Policy Optimization for Token-Efficient ReasoningPreprint
He, Y.-H., Zhu, Y.-C., Shi, M.-J., Zheng, W., Su, L., Wang, X.-Q., Guo, Q., & Li, J.-D. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.19049 · Cited by 3
“Variants including RLHF (Ouyang et al., 2022; Christiano et al., 2017), RLAIF (Lee et al., 2023; 2024), and DPO (Rafailov et al., 2023) simplify reward modeling or replace human feedback with AI-based evaluators, improving scalability and stability (Bai et al., 2022; Rafailov et al., 2023).”
Wang, C.-G., Zhou, Z., Bai, L., & Yu, T.-S. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.13136 · Cited by 3
“…complex, involving three distinct stages: (1) Large-scale Pre-training on synthetic data; (2) Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) (Lee et al., 2023; Li et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2024) using Proximal Policy Optimization (Schulman et al., 2017) to align with chemical validity; and…”
SDA: Steering-Driven Distribution Alignment for Open LLMs without Fine-TuningPreprint
Xia, W., & Deng, Z. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.16324 · Cited by 1
“To simplify the process, methods like DPO (Rafailov et al. 2023) by-pass explicit reward modeling by directly optimizing preference pairs, while RLAIF (Lee et al. 2023) reduce reliance on human annotation by utilizing AI-generated or ranked responses.”
Metadata
- 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