TL;DR
This project asks a focused question: does ordering training data by difficulty make RLOO fine-tuning more effective on a reasoning task, and does a performance-adaptive curriculum outperform a fixed one?
Reinforcement learning (RL) has become central to improving large language models (LLMs) on complex reasoning tasks, yet RL post-training is largely studied in isolation from the pretraining that precedes it. As a result, two basic questions remain open: (1) how do pretraining choices (model size, data) shape the returns to RL compute, and (2) what does RL actually do to the model? These questions are difficult to study in the standard LLM setting: pretraining corpora are vast and uncontrolled, making it hard to attribute behaviors to pretraining versus RL, and systematic compute sweeps across both stages are prohibitively expensive. To address these challenges, we use chess as a controlled testbed for studying reasoning across the full pretraining-to-post-training pipeline. We follow the standard LLM training pipeline by pretraining language models from 5M to 1B parameters on human chess games, supervised fine-tuning on synthetic reasoning traces, and running RL on chess puzzles with verifiable rewards. Using this framework, we find that the post-RL performance at given RL compute level is well-predicted from the pretraining loss, and slope of the RL reward curves improves approximately linearly with the pretraining tokens. Beyond scaling, we find that RL does not simply sharpen the SFT policy: on easy puzzles it amplifies correct moves the SFT policy already preferred, while on hard puzzles it surfaces correct moves that were nearly absent under SFT. We further test whether our findings transfer beyond chess by training a 1B language model on math-domain text, where the same predictive pattern emerges: longer-pretrained checkpoints reach higher post-RL performance and improve faster under RL. In sum, we provide a quantitative account of the pretraining-to-RL interface and a controlled testbed for studying the science of reasoning across the full pretraining-to-post-training pipeline.
Long-horizon manipulation tasks pose significant challenges for reinforcement learning due to sparse reward signals and long horizons. Automatic curriculum learning (ACL) has been proposed to tackle these challenges by progressively training agents on a sequence of tasks, from easier to more difficult. However, the success of ACL depends heavily on task-dependent specifications-such as well-defined task parameter spaces and difficulty measures-which are often manually crafted and difficult to generalize across diverse tasks. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer a promising alternative by enabling the decomposition of complex tasks into meaningful subtasks using the LLMs'web-scale common-sense knowledge. This decomposition can provide a natural curriculum structure for efficient learning of long-horizon tasks. However, existing LLM-based methods typically rely on hand-designed dense reward functions to learn each subtask, which can introduce bias and still requires significant human supervision. In this work, we propose LLM-enhanced automatic curriculum learning (LEACL), a framework that integrates LLMs and ACL to address these limitations. Specifically, LLMs are used to both decompose tasks into subtasks and to generate task-dependent specifications for each subtask. These specifications are then used by ACL algorithms to guide learning using only sparse reward signals, eliminating the need for dense reward design. We evaluate LEACL on five long-horizon manipulation tasks from the LIBERO benchmark. LEACL achieves better asymptotic performance in terms of the success rates compared to human-designed dense rewards.
Desc descriptive evidence is provided that long-horizon multi-tool post-training can change ways of working that transfer beyond its training domain, and both software-engineering benchmarks improve despite the training collection containing no software-engineering tasks.
This work proposes RLPF, reinforcement learning from performance feedback, which turns execution outcomes into a staged reward, and suggests that code agents can be trained not only to pass tests, but also to optimize the programs they write.
This work proposes a self-evolving curriculum that, each round, evaluates the current checkpoint, seeds QbQ from the problems it can mostly get right, and trains on the resulting variants; under an identical data budget, this breaks the ceiling and lifts pass@1 to 16.5\% with no sign of saturation after 20 rounds.
Reinforcement learning (RL) is increasingly used to post-train vision-language-action (VLA) models, but every update consumes robot rollouts that are slow and costly to collect, making sample efficiency a central concern. Manipulation tasks typically provide only sparse rewards, so a weak policy fails almost every rollout early in training and has little to learn from, even when those failures execute coherent behavior. Such a failure, however, is a success at a different task. We present Learning from Hindsight (LfH), which brings hindsight relabeling to RL post-training of VLAs by scoring failed rollouts against the tasks they actually achieved. A single vision-language model relabels both the instruction and the reward, proposing a hindsight instruction for a group of failed rollouts and scoring how well each satisfies it, and the policy trains on the relabeled and original rollouts jointly. Because VLAs generalize across language, relabeling in language lets the policy learn more from the same trajectories. On out-of-distribution LIBERO-PRO tasks, where standard RL improves only slowly, LfH achieves $5\times$ improvement in sample efficiency, and outperforms a dense progress-reward baseline. The gains hold across VLA backbones and on a physical Franka robot.
