The implication is not that $N=2$ is universally sufficient, but that small-population failure in capable-model binary ES can be an implementation artifact rather than an intrinsic population limit.
Abstract
Using Evolutionary Strategies (ES) for fine-tuning large language models is attractive because it is memory-efficient, parallel, and compatible with black-box or discrete rewards. Yet its population-size conclusions conflict sharply: fine-tuning with cross-entropy (CE) reward succeeds with $N=1$, while binary-reward training often needs $N \approx 30$. We show this gap is largely about reward design and normalization, not population size. In the capable-model regime we study, z-score advantage normalization can cause $N=2$ to fail. Disabling normalization lets binary-reward ES with $N=2$ improve on GSM8K and TREC across capable models spanning 0.5B-7B, where the normalized variant collapses or degrades. This small-$N$ risk is set by reward granularity: binary accuracy reward induces a zero-advantage probability $q$ that depends in closed form on base accuracy, batch size, and intra-pair correctness correlation; a zero-training probe on Qwen2.5-Instruct/GSM8K matches the formula with mean absolute error 0.020 across 12 configurations and finds the availability threshold $N_{\mathrm{avail}}$ to be small in this capable-model regime. The implication is not that $N=2$ is universally sufficient, but that small-population failure in capable-model binary ES can be an implementation artifact rather than an intrinsic population limit.
Scaling laws for optimization against reward models in AI alignment have pinned down how performance depends on optimization effort---measured by a KL-divergence budget relative to a reference policy. Beyond a certain budget, over-optimization (or reward hacking) can arise: because we optimize against a proxy reward mo...
Ali Aouad, Aymane El Gadarri, V. Farias· 0 citations
Post-training a large language model (LLM) often requires exploring trade-offs between multiple rewards, but retraining for each trade-off is expensive. Decoding-time policy composition allows these trade-offs to be adjusted by combining reward-specific policies at inference time. This composition targets a weighted pr...
A. Kurennoy, R. Yarullin, Fergal Reid· 0 citations
This work proposes a general RL-based framework for Distribution Matching allowing matching the distribution of a latent categorical attribute of model outputs to a specified target distribution and proposes reward functions for other divergences such as KL and Jensen-Shannon and motivate them with theoretical justific...
Sourabh Kulkarni, Ksheeraj Sai Vepuri, B. Demir et al.· 0 citations
A unified theory for RE(S) is developed that covers the full spectrum of S, and can be interpreted as a stage-wise optimization process, where each stage takes $S$ gradient steps for minimizing the Kullback-Leibler distance to a fixed reward-weighted rollout distribution.
Zhi-Wei Wang, Yan-Xi Chen, Ya-Liang Li et al.· 0 citations
Multi-reward reinforcement learning trains large language models to satisfy multiple behavioral objectives simultaneously. Reward-wise normalization, as used in GDPO, preserves reward-specific relative information within rollout groups, but different objectives can still exhibit uneven learning progress. We study this...
Tong Zheng, Skylar Zhai, Zhan Cheng et al.· 0 citations
Reward models underpin the alignment of large language models, yet the dominant designs reduce each prompt--response pair to a point estimate or to a distribution from a fixed parametric family. This is at odds with human preference, which is inherently multimodal: the same response can be reasonably judged in many way...
Xiang-Yang Wang, Bing-Xiang He, Ze-Yuan Liu et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.