跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-08 16:36 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-07 16:57 — 2026-11-08 16:57(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-08 16:36最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-08 16:33(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02609

Whitened Advantage Summation Policy Optimization: Correlation-Aware Aggregation for Multi-Reward Reinforcement Learning

Olaitan Olaleye, Jayson Meribe, Temidayo Olaleye

原文摘要

Reinforcement learning for language models often combines several rewards by normalizing each one and adding them with fixed weights. When the rewards are correlated, the variation they share is counted once for every reward that carries it. In terms of the ZCA-decorrelated components of the reward signal, the weighted sum applies weights $Σ^{1/2} w$ rather than the chosen weights $w$, where $Σ$ is the reward correlation matrix. We study WAS-PO, which whitens the normalized advantages with $Σ^{-1/2}$ before adding them, so that the chosen weights apply to those components. We derive the scalarized objective whose gradient it follows when normalization statistics are held fixed, show that its weights on the raw rewards can be negative, give an exact two-reward condition under which the lighter-weighted reward is reversed, and give a loose bound on the error from estimating $Σ$ during training. On tool calling with Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct, WAS-PO reached a higher mean training reward than GDPO in all seven seeds with three rewards (3.8% higher) and all three seeds with four (3.9% higher). WAS-PO also replaces GDPO's per-prompt normalization with batch-level normalization, and we did not separate the two changes with three or four rewards. The training-reward gains did not carry over to held-out accuracy, which was slightly lower than GDPO's with three rewards (not significant) and 0.03 lower in absolute terms with four (two seeds evaluated). With two rewards, WAS-PO trailed GDPO in training reward, and a three-seed control weakly suggests that the gap comes from batch-level normalization rather than whitening. In a math setting where the two rewards were nearly identical by construction, WAS-PO drove down the lighter-weighted reward, as the sign condition predicts.

cs.LG · cs.AI