PreprintCited by 1Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsSpeech and dialogue systemsNatural Language Processing Techniques

Reflect-RL: Two-Player Online RL Fine-Tuning for LMs

Open access
Zhou, Runlong, Du, Simon S., Li, Beibin·2024·arXiv

Abstract

As language models (LMs) demonstrate their capabilities in various fields, their application to tasks requiring multi-round interactions has become increasingly popular. These tasks usually have complex dynamics, so supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on a limited offline dataset does not yield good performance. However, only a few works attempted to directly train the LMs within interactive decision-making environments. We aim to create an effective approach to fine-tune LMs with online reinforcement learning (RL) in these environments. We propose Reflect-RL, a two-player system to fine-tune an LM using SFT and online RL, where a frozen reflection model (player) assists the policy model (player). To generate data for the warm-up SFT stage, we use negative example generation to enhance the error-correction ability of the reflection model. Furthermore, we designed single-prompt action enumeration and applied curriculum learning to allow the policy model to learn more efficiently. Empirically, we verify that Reflect-RL outperforms SFT and online RL without reflection. Testing results indicate GPT-2 XL 1.56B fine-tuned with Reflect-RL outperforms larger open-source LMs, such as Mistral 7B. The benchmarks, dataset, and code involved in this work are publicly available: https://github.com/zhourunlong/Reflect-RL.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.12621

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Ka- plan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sas- try, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cum- mings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Eliza- beth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shan- tanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code.
  2. Ching-An Cheng, Andrey Kolobov, Dipendra Misra, Allen Nie, and Adith Swaminathan. 2023. LLF-Bench: Benchmark for Interactive Learn- ing from Language Feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06853. · arXiv
  3. Marc-Alexandre Côté, Akos Kádár, Xingdi Yuan, Ben Kybartas, Tavian Barnes, Emery Fine, James Moore, Matthew Hausknecht, Layla El Asri, Mahmoud Adada, et al. 2019. Textworld: A learning environ- ment for text-based games. In Computer Games: 7th Workshop, CGW 2018, Held in Conjunction with the 27th International Conference on Artificial In- telligence, IJCAI 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, July 13, 2018, Revised Selected Papers 7, pages 41-75. Springer.
  4. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929. · arXiv
  5. Zane Durante, Bidipta Sarkar, Ran Gong, Rohan Taori, Yusuke Noda, Paul Tang, Ehsan Adeli, Shrinidhi Kowshika Lakshmikanth, Kevin Schul- man, Arnold Milstein, et al. 2024. An Inter- active Agent Foundation Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05929. · arXiv
  6. Avrilia Floratou, Fotis Psallidas, Fuheng Zhao, Shaleen Deep, Gunther Hagleither, Joyce Cahoon, Rana Alotaibi, et al. 2024. NL2SQL Is a Solved Problem... Not! In Proceedings of the CIDER 2024.
  7. Shibo Hao, Yi Gu, Haodi Ma, Joshua Jiahua Hong, Zhen Wang, Daisy Zhe Wang, and Zhiting Hu. 2023. Reasoning with language model is planning with world model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14992. · arXiv
  8. Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Adams Wei Yu, Xiny- ing Song, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01798. · arXiv
  9. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Hein- rich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented gen- eration for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474.
  10. Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08485. · arXiv
  11. Grégoire Mialon, Clémentine Fourrier, Craig Swift, Thomas Wolf, Yann LeCun, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Gaia: a benchmark for general ai assistants. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12983. · arXiv
  12. Joon Sung Park, Joseph O'Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. 2023. Generative agents: Interactive sim- ulacra of human behavior. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 1-22.
  13. Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. 2020. Alfworld: Aligning text and em- bodied environments for interactive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03768. · arXiv
  14. Richard S Sutton, David McAllester, Satinder Singh, and Yishay Mansour. 1999. Policy Gradient Meth- ods for Reinforcement Learning with Function Ap- proximation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 12. MIT Press.
  15. Alexander Sasha Vezhnevets, John P Agapiou, Avia Aharon, Ron Ziv, Jayd Matyas, Edgar A Duéñez- Guzmán, William A Cunningham, Simon Osindero, Danny Karmon, and Joel Z Leibo. 2023. Genera- tive agent-based modeling with actions grounded in physical, social, or digital space using Concordia. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03664. · arXiv
  16. Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. 2023a. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11432. · arXiv
  17. John Yang, Akshara Prabhakar, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023. InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execu- tion Feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14898. · arXiv
  18. Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2022. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629. · arXiv
  19. Weizhe Yuan, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Kyunghyun Cho, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Jing Xu, and Jason We- ston. 2024. Self-rewarding language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10020. · arXiv
  20. Danyang Zhang, Lu Chen, Situo Zhang, Hongshen Xu, Zihan Zhao, and Kai Yu. 2023. Large Language Model Is Semi-Parametric Reinforcement Learning Agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07929. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • An Efficient Context-Dependent Memory Framework for LLM-Centric Agents

    Gao, P., Zhao, J., Chen, X., & Yilin, L. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 3: Industry Track) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-industry.80 · Cited by 4 · see citing works

    “Retroformer(Yao et al., 2024) and Reflect-RL(Zhou et al., 2024) further enhanced Reflexion by incorporating reinforcement learning to train specific components, effectively embedding part of the memory into model parameters to improve the agent’s reasoning capabilities.”

Authors
Zhou, R., Du, S. S., & Li, B.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392019830
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Microsoft Research
  • University of Washington
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
online reinforcement learning, language model fine-tuning, reflection model, supervised fine-tuning, curriculum learning

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