paper.dinq.meAI 与前沿科学顶会 · 学术新星雷达
登录 DINQ
返回新星榜
BB

Brian R. Bartoldson

COLM 2026×2AAAI 2026推理强化学习与后训练数据与预训练评测与基准对齐与偏好
新星分贡献者
52
一作贡献0
核心/参与15
方向广度13
合作网络12
0 一作 · 3 篇 · COLM 2026 / AAAI 2026

获取完整研究档案

首次获取该候选人的完整档案及 StartLux 评估共 20 积分;每位用户单独解锁,之后查看免费。主动刷新 20 积分。

联系方式

实时查找电子邮箱,费用不超过20积分;未找到邮箱不扣费。

2026 顶会论文

3
作者位次 #5/10COLM 2026Poster· Poster Session 5· Grand Ballroom· #102

Teaching Pretrained Language Models to Think Deeper with Retrofitted Recurrence

Sean Michael McLeish · Ang Li · John Kirchenbauer · Dayal Singh Kalra · Brian R. Bartoldson · Bhavya Kailkhura · Avi Schwarzschild · Jonas Geiping · Tom Goldstein · Micah Goldblum

We retrofit depth recurrence into pretrained transformer models.

摘要

Recent advances in depth-recurrent language models show that recurrence can decouple train-time compute and parameter count from test-time compute. In this work, we study how to retrofit existing pretrained non-recurrent language models into depth-recurrent models. We find that using a curriculum of recurrences to increase the effective depth of the model over the course of training preserves performance while reducing total computational cost. In our experiments, on mathematics, we observe that retrofitting pretrained models to recurrent ones results in better performance at a given compute budget than simply post-training the original non-recurrent language model.

推理强化学习与后训练数据与预训练Depth RecurrenceLarge Language ModelLooped TransformerLatent ReasoningOpenReview
作者位次 #4/13COLM 2026Poster· Poster Session 4· Imperial Ballroom· #65

A Comedy of Estimators: On KL Regularization in RL Training of LLMs

Vedant Shah · Johan Obando-Ceron · Vineet Jain · Brian R. Bartoldson · Bhavya Kailkhura · Sarthak Mittal · Glen Berseth · Pablo Samuel Castro · Yoshua Bengio · Esmeralda S. Whitammer · Moksh Jain · Siddarth Venkatraman · Aaron Courville

We provide a systematic study of the design choices pertaining to use of KL Divergence in the context of RL training of LLMs

摘要

The reverse Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between the trained policy and a reference policy is commonly used as a regularizer when training large language models (LLMs) with reinforcement learning (RL). Since computing the exact sequence-level KL divergence is intractable, practical algorithms use sample-based estimators computed from on-policy rollouts, and incorporate them in the reward or the loss. Despite its ubiquity, the interaction between estimator choice, position of the regularization and downstream performance is poorly understood. Recent work also identifies that certain implementation choices can result in biased gradients. We further analyze these practices and examine the gradients of several estimator configurations, showing how the choices shape gradient bias. We substantiate these observations with empirical evidence by RL fine-tuning LLMs with different KL configurations, and evaluating their performance on both in- and out-of-distribution tasks. In on-policy settings, we find that biased-gradient estimator configurations can cause training instabilities, while unbiased-gradient configurations lead to better performance on in-domain as well as out-of-domain tasks. We also observe that KL regularization can help stabilize asynchronous training. Overall, our findings provide useful takeaways for using KL-regularized objectives during RL post-training of LLMs.

强化学习与后训练推理评测与基准KL RegularizationGradient BiasLLMsReasoningOpenReview

常见合作者