Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper addresses the problem of deploying LLM-generated rewards in RL, noting that their utility varies with policy competence and training phase. They introduce RHyVE, a protocol that uses short-horizon fork verification to compare reward hypotheses from shared policy checkpoints, enabling competence-aware verification and phase-aware deployment. Experiments on a sparse manipulation task demonstrate that RHyVE improves peak and retained performance by adapting to the changing reliability of reward rankings during training.
LLM-generated rewards in RL can actually hurt performance if deployed at the wrong training stage, but this competence-aware verification method can help.
Large language models (LLMs) make reward design in reinforcement learning substantially more scalable, but generated rewards are not automatically reliable training objectives. Existing work has focused primarily on generating, evolving, or selecting reward candidates, while paying less attention to when such candidates can be verified and deployed during policy optimization. We study this deployment-time problem by treating generated rewards as reward hypotheses whose utility depends on the competence of the current policy and the phase of training. We propose \textsc{RHyVE}, a competence-aware verification and phase-aware deployment protocol that compares small sets of reward hypotheses from shared policy checkpoints using short-horizon fork verification. Our experiments show that reward rankings are unreliable at low competence but become informative after task-dependent thresholds. On a sparse manipulation task, phase-aware deployment improves peak and retained performance under a locked protocol. Updated LLM-generated reward-candidate experiments show candidate-family-dependent behavior: generated pools can exhibit phase-dependent winner changes, but no fixed warm-up schedule is universally optimal. Held-out schedule selection, conservative selector baselines, compute-matched controls, and scale controls further show that \textsc{RHyVE} is best understood as a verification-informed deployment protocol rather than a universal scheduler. Dense and all-failure boundary experiments delimit the scope of the method. Together, these results suggest that reward generation and reward deployment should be studied as coupled problems: generated rewards must be verified and deployed under changing policy competence.
