ai-agent-book/slides/lesson-28.md

theme, title, info, author, transition, mdc, lineNumbers, monaco, aspectRatio, canvasWidth, layout, class

theme	title	info	author	transition	mdc	lineNumbers	monaco	aspectRatio	canvasWidth	layout	class
seriph	Lesson 28 — How Do Preferences Become a Trainable Signal?	English video course for AI Agents in Depth	Bojie Li	slide-left	true	false	false	16/9	980	cover	cover

Improve · Chapter 7 · Model Post-Training

How Do Preferences Become a Trainable Signal?

RLHF, reward models, KL constraints, PPO, GRPO, and DPO

Lesson 28 of 42 · 17 minutes · RLHF: From Human Preferences to Reward Models; Comparison of RL Algorithms

---

layout: center class: text-center

The central question

How can human comparisons change a policy without letting optimization destroy useful behavior?

---

Why this problem matters

Preference data

Humans compare outputs more reliably than they author perfect ones.

Reward model

Generalizes pairwise labels into a scalar training signal.

Reference policy

KL pressure limits drift away from known behavior.

---

Three ideas to keep in view

PPO

Actor + critic + clipped policy update

GRPO

Normalize rewards within a sampled response group

DPO

Optimize chosen over rejected responses without a rollout loop

---

The book's visual model

Group Relative Policy Optimization flow

---

Outcome optimization vs. Preference optimization

Outcome optimization

• Can discover new outputs
• Requires rollouts
• Reward hacking risk

Preference optimization

• Uses chosen/rejected pairs
• Simpler pipeline
• Bounded by offline data

The algorithm changes how the signal is used—not whether the signal is valid.

---

A relative advantage removes the critic

rewards = verifier(samples)
adv = (rewards - rewards.mean()) / (rewards.std() + 1e-6)
ratio = policy.prob(samples) / old_policy.prob(samples)
loss = clipped_policy_loss(ratio, adv)
loss += beta * kl(policy, reference)

---

Test the claim

RL evaluation check2 min

Run answer-extraction tests for an RL-trained reasoner

Observe: Whether the evaluator recognizes the trained model's answer format without inflating accuracy

Demo budget: 2 minutes · one contiguous terminal block

---

class: course-terminal

Live demo

Switching to the terminal

$ python -m pytest chapter7/Intuitor/tests -q

Run the command(s), narrate decisions, and point to the observation—not just the output.

---

What the evidence supports

Finding 1

Preference labels can train either an explicit reward model or a direct objective.

Finding 2

Relative rewards reduce value-model complexity but do not fix a bad verifier.

Finding 3

KL is a steering constraint, not proof that useful capabilities are retained.

---

layout: center

Where the claim stops

Boundary condition

Offline preference methods cannot explore behaviors absent from their comparison data.

---

layout: center

Engineering takeaway

Design rule

Choose the simplest optimizer that can use your signal, then spend most of the effort validating the signal and holdout behavior.

---

Continue the experiment

Intuitor training companion chapter7/Intuitor/ verl RL training framework chapter7/verl/ Tinker cookbook chapter7/tinker-cookbook/ Reward paradigm evolution book-en/images/fig7-reward-paradigms.svg

---

layout: center class: text-center

Pause and apply

Your turn

What shortcut could maximize your proposed reward while making the real product worse?

---

layout: center class: text-center

Next · Lesson 29

Move attention from algorithm names to the data and environment that define the signal.

→