Project Details
Updated 07/13/26 · Edited by orgCurrent post-training learns by interpreting human feedback as a reward to be maximized. However, human usually form preferences by comparing options over the long run, not by chasing a myopic, short score. Hence, treating feedback as a reward maximization does not match how people actually make judgements [1]. This project builds a novel technique of learning from human feedback beyond reward maximization that stays closer to real human judgment, and efficient even when human feedback is limited and costly to collect. Our approach has two parts:
The first is reading human feedback the way people actually produce it, which we call cognitive alignment. In our previous work PPL [2] and RePO [3], we model a preference as regret, meaning a human judgment of how much better a different choice would have been. This gives a more accurate picture of human decision-making, and in our experiments, it improved both alignment and efficiency at the same time. PPL began with robotic manipulation and RePO with LLMs, and this project extends the idea to agentic AI, where a system takes many steps and mixes human and automated feedback, tested on tool use benchmarks [4, 5].
The second part is keeping the learning provably correct when training runs at large scale asynchronously. Frontier post-training relies on asynchronous RL, which decouples rollout generation from policy updates to gain throughput across large clusters. This naturally leads to off-policy, because rollouts become stale and the offline data is heavily filtered and reused. In this regime, the estimators (e.g., importance ratios, divergence term) become unreliable and the policy gradient grows biased and high variance as staleness accumulates. Method such as GRPO [6] recover stability by normalization and hyperparameter tuning, yet no principled criterion tells us which of these corrections remain permissible [7]. This project characterizes how far the learned reward under ad-hoc off-policy corrections departs from the ground truth.
Theory of Impact
Updated 07/28/26 · By grantmaking.aiToday's post-training increasingly uses LLM judges and RLVR to replace human feedback on verifiable tasks such as code and math [1, 2]. But the settings where advanced AI is actually being deployed are dominated by non-verifiable interaction (e.g., service quality in agentic AI, and control and safety in physical/embodied AI) involve an enormous number of human-AI interactions whose correctness cannot be checked automatically. Some work proposes giving even these a process-level automatic signal, yet quantifying the quality of a process is inherently ambiguous, so automated judges cannot fully replace human feedback in these domains [3]. The human role therefore does not disappear as models scale, rather it concentrates on exactly these non-verifiable, process-level judgments, and that irreducible human role is itself a safeguard against AI we can no longer directly supervise.
People
Updated 07/28/26 · Edited by orgCo-investigator
Co-investigator
Discussion
Hi @Taehyun Cho! Excited about this one — based on our grantmakers' reviews, we're making a grant of $35,000. Two quick questions before we distribute:
- Did you receive funding from anywhere since submitting this application, or has the funding ask changed for any other reason?
- Please confirm your commitment to post quarterly updates on how the project is going.
Hi @Anton Makiievskyi 🔸 ,
Thank you so much, this is wonderful news!
To answer your questions:
- I have not received funding from anywhere else since submitting this application. I believe my original budget estimate was a bit too conservative though, and I'd like to update it to $50,000. I understand this may not necessarily lead to an increase in the grant amount, but I'd appreciate it if the updated estimate could be reflected on the funding page in case other funders are considering supporting this work.
- Yes, I'm happy to commit to posting quarterly updates on how the project is going.
Additionally, would it be possible to add Tim Rudner as a Co-Investigator on the project page? He has been contributing GPU resources and co-supervising the project, and I would like him to be listed as Co-PI, while all funds would still be used and distributed by me.
- Are you saying that 35k wouldn't be sufficient to give a boost to the project? Otherwise - the ideal amount is already set to be 50k
Sorry for the confusion. I was looking at an outdated figure and didn't realize the ideal amount was already set to 50k. That's all I meant, so no changes needed on your end. 35k will definitely give the project a meaningful boost, and I really appreciate it. Thanks again!
Private comment. Only shown to approved funders and grant reviewers.