ORPA: Online Residual Policy Adaptation for Robot Manipulation Control with Human Feedback

Robotic manipulation policies trained via imitation learning, such as Action Chunking with Transformers (ACT), can achieve strong performance under ideal conditions but often remain sensitive to small execution errors and distribution shifts. Correcting these failures typically requires dataset aggregation and full-policy retraining, which is computationally expensive and unsuitable for real-time deployment. In this work, we propose Online Residual Policy Adaptation (ORPA), a framework that enables immediate, feedback-driven correction of robot actions without modifying the underlying policy parameters. ORPA augments a pretrained control policy with a lightweight, feedback-conditioned module that predicts residual adjustments directly in joint space, allowing the system to adapt its behavior at runtime. We evaluate ORPA on a set of precision-sensitive manipulation tasks using the ALOHA platform, demonstrating improvements in success rate and recovery from small perturbations compared to baseline control policies and rule-based inverse kinematics corrections.

Policy Iteration with Human Feedback: Bringing Post-Training RL to In-context Learning

Generative pretraining established reusable task representations; later work on language-based task conditioning and in-context learning showed that a fixed model could adapt its behavior from instructions and demonstrations. Policy Iteration with Human Feedback (PIHF) builds on this development and the recurrent evaluate-and-improve structure of generalized policy iteration. PIHF uses a pretrained language model as its execution substrate and moves persistent revision to a versioned natural-language policy and tool set. A language-model critic and clinical expert review complete-panel reasoning and tool-use trajectories to localize recurrent failures and form candidate revisions; the expert may reinterpret the evidence and retains authority over admission and rollback, while Recall@1 and Recall@5 validate outcomes after candidate execution. Across cumulative ablations and ultra-rare-disease benchmarks, a PIHF-derived policy improved Recall@1 in one proprietary executor and three open-weight executors spanning 3 to 49 billion active parameters. Gains were 32.7 percentage points for GPT-5.4 and 31.1 points for Qwen3.6-35B, a difference of 1.7 points. These results support the feasibility of using pretrained language models as fixed-weight execution substrates for expert-guided policy development in rare-disease diagnosis.

LEMUR: Learning to Align with Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning from Preference Feedback

Reinforcement Learning (RL) systems are typically trained using a single, well-specified scalar reward function. However, real-world decision-making tasks often involve multiple, competing objectives, such as performance versus efficiency, where ground-truth reward functions are difficult to specify or inaccessible. While Multi-Objective RL (MORL) addresses such trade-offs by modeling rewards as vectors, existing approaches typically assume access to a well-specified reward function for each objective, inheriting the same challenges faced by single-objective RL. Meanwhile, Preference-based RL (PbRL) has shown great potential in solving complex tasks without access to a pre-defined reward function through reward learning from human feedback, yet has largely been studied in single-objective settings. In this work, we bridge this gap with LEMUR: Learning to Align with Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning with Preference feedback, a novel framework where an agent interactively learns from the preferences of multiple humans to learn optimal multi-objective policies. Our approach jointly learns policies and multiple objective-specific reward models from human feedback, enabling agents to effectively balance competing objectives during learning. We evaluate LEMUR on a variety of benchmark multi-objective tasks, and empirical results demonstrate its superior performance over baseline methods. Our method presents a promising direction for solving multi-objective decision-making tasks without pre-defined reward functions.

A Few Words Go a Long Way: Language Guided Robot Policy Synthesis

While vision-language-action models have demonstrated impressive zero-shot manipulation capabilities, they remain fundamentally black box policies that are difficult to interpret, adapt, or correct when they inevitably fail. In this work, we propose ARCHITECT, a framework that treats robot policy acquisition as an interactive program synthesis task. ARCHITECT leverages the reasoning capabilities of LLM coding agents to synthesize modular robot programs that utilize a suite of perception and control tools. Unlike end-to-end models where distribution shift leads to unpredictable, cascading failures, our modular architecture allows users to isolate failures and localize feedback at the level of abstraction required. We introduce an iterative process where a human supervisor provides natural language corrections to steer the policy. These corrections are grounded in the policy code by program execution traces and distilled into a persistent skill library, a form of long-term in-context learning which enables the agent to accumulate a repertoire of reusable, interpretable behaviors. In a benchmark evaluation on a Franka Panda robot, ARCHITECT outperforms state-of-the-art VLA models and program synthesis baselines on complex, long-horizon tasks, including articulated object manipulation and cloth folding. Our results demonstrate that the synthesized skill library enables the system to transfer to novel tasks with decreasing human intervention, providing a steerable and data-efficient alternative to black-box robot learning. Website: https://robo-architect.github.io/

KeySI: An Interaction Framework for Tuning Text Embeddings Based on Human Feedback

In large-scale text analysis tasks, pre-trained language models are often used to embed text corpora for downstream analysis. However, such models may struggle to capture domain-specific semantics and adapting them typically requires large amounts of labeled data and technical expertise to implement training pipelines. Recent approaches have demonstrated how visual interactions in document projections can capture human feedback as training signals for model tuning. However, these methods operate on document-level feedback, which requires users to open and assess individual documents in order to provide effective feedback. In this paper, we propose KeySI, an interaction framework that enables feature-level feedback through keyword-based concept specification. Users specify feedback by organizing extracted keywords into groups representing concepts, which KeySI translates into document-level supervision for subsequent tuning. By operating on keywords as the primary interaction medium, KeySI reduces the need for manual document inspection and labeling and lowers the barrier to adapting embedding models. We present a prototype implementation that, given a corpus, curates representative keywords, visualizes keywords and document embeddings via dimensionality reduction, allows interactive specification of keyword groups, and supports iterative refinement through system feedback. We evaluate KeySI through a user study, usage scenarios, and quantitative experiments demonstrating its effectiveness in capturing user intent and improving embedding alignment.

Step-Level Preference Learning for Generative Agents in Social Simulations

Large language model (LLM)-based generative agents simulate human behavior through long-horizon decision-making processes that comprise intermediate steps such as planning, memory retrieval, reflection, and action selection. However, fine-grained human annotations of these intermediate steps remain scarce, and existing agents are not grounded in human preferences over such intermediate decisions. To address this gap, we introduce \method, an interactive simulation interface that enables us to collect step-level human preference supervision over agent decision trajectories, leading to a dataset of 57K fine-grained annotations. We conduct step-level preference learning on open-weight language models using supervised finetuning and direct preference optimization on this data, consistently improving simulation fidelity, coordination, and interaction quality, and inducing more socially effective agent behavior. Our results show that step-level human supervision is an effective training signal for improving both local decision quality and long-horizon agent behavior.

RENEW: Towards Learning World Models and Repairing Model Exploitation from Preferences

World models are widely used in offline reinforcement learning (RL) to improve sample efficiency and generate experience beyond a fixed dataset. However, they are vulnerable to model exploitation where data coverage is thin. Prior work addresses this either by collecting more expert demonstrations, which is often expensive, unsafe, or unavailable, or by conservative algorithms that avoid uncertain regions, which limits generalization. We propose instead to repair exploitation directly using human preferences over imagined rollouts, leveraging the strong intuitive physics that allows humans to easily spot egregious dynamics hallucinations. We formalize this as Dynamics Learning from Human Feedback (DLHF), a Bradley-Terry preference loss over trajectory log-likelihoods under a learned dynamics model. Unfortunately, naive DLHF is sample inefficient, so we introduce RENEW, which uses epistemic uncertainty to focus finetuning where the model is most exploitable. We evaluate on several Jumanji and classic control environments and find that while naive DLHF requires an outsize preference budget, RENEW makes the framework practical by improving sample efficiency, limiting catastrophic forgetting, and reducing exploitation in pretrained world models. Taken together, our results provide initial evidence that preferences can supervise world model dynamics directly, offering a new approach to addressing exploitation in offline model-based RL.

Learning Safe Agent Behaviour from Human Preferences and Justifications via World Models

We address the problem of safely training an agent policy and deploying a good and safe policy, in settings where the environment dynamics are unknown and no suitable reward function is available. In the context of safety-critical environments, we consider traditional reinforcement learning impractical and resort to the resource of human input. We introduce DROPJ, a human-centred method for both safe training and deployment. We first learn a world model (a learned simulator) from a dataset of prior real-world trajectories. A human then plays the game in this learned simulator to extract several informative simulated trajectories. From these, we sample pairs of simulated trajectory segments and elicit from a human their preference over these segments, as well as a reason (justification) for their choice. We then train a reward model from these justified preferences and use it, together with the world model, to directly deploy the agent using model predictive control. Running real-user experiments, we find that generating informative simulated trajectories from a user significantly reduces the computational cost during training compared to other strategies, and can also improve the performance during deployment. In the context of training within a learned simulator, we show that the use of preferences rather than other types of feedback substantially improves the performance during deployment. We further demonstrate that safety justifications accompanying preferences can significantly enhance safety or prioritise user-prescribed aspects of safety associated with them during deployment.

Enhancing LLMs through human feedback: a journey towards self-improvement

In the rapidly evolving landscape of information retrieval systems, the ability to adapt and improve through user feedback is paramount. This study introduces a novel methodology for refining the performance of a primary Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) system by strategically integrating an auxiliary feedback RAG system. By systematically harnessing human-generated feedback, the approach aims to enhance the accuracy, relevance, and overall quality of responses, driving the system towards self-improvement. Central to this methodology is a human-in-the-loop implementation, where user feedback is continuously collected, classified, and integrated into the inference workflow, enabling the system to learn and evolve iteratively. To validate the effectiveness of this approach, the study employs rigorous testing against three diverse benchmark datasets focused on general and custom domain knowledge, utilizing a LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation strategy. This comprehensive framework not only underscores the transformative potential of feedback-driven enhancements in RAG systems but also sets a precedent for future research in adaptive information retrieval technologies, marking a significant step in the journey towards autonomous refinement and optimization through user engagement.

Feedback Manipulation Regularization: Enabling Offline Agent Alignment for Imitation Learning

Reinforcement learning (RL) research has increasingly shifted focus towards alignment, ensuring agents learn behaviors adhering to human values. While human demonstrations and feedback have proven crucial for alignment, existing approaches predominantly combine these signals using multi-stage pipelines designed for the contextual bandit framing of language generation. Yet little work explores how these complementary inputs can serve as a richer, interconnected signal for single-stage offline training in fully sequential decision-making environments. We propose Feedback Manipulation Regularization (FMR), an algorithm-agnostic method that harnesses evaluative feedback as a corrective signal to improve the alignment of imitation learning policies. We adapt Safety Gymnasium environments to be a principled testbed for alignment evaluation, demonstrating improved aptitude and up to a 98\% reduction in misalignment across a range of imitation learning algorithms. FMR remains robust in limited data regimes, even when learning from scarce aligned and uninformative noisy demonstrations.

Attention Limited Reward Learning

Pairwise human comparisons are a primary interface through which modern AI systems learn human preferences. RLHF and related alignment pipelines typically model such comparisons with Bradley--Terry log-odds, where choice probabilities are governed by latent reward differences. This paper examines what this assumption misses through a reduced-form model motivated by rational inattention, in which each label is generated by a low-capacity evaluation channel. The model separates two forms of ambiguity that standard reward modeling tends to conflate: a comparison may be difficult because the two candidates are genuinely close in value, or because the relevant distinction is hard to detect under limited attention. We show that limited attention can fundamentally distort what pairwise comparisons reveal. In particular, passive comparison data cannot generally distinguish reward, attention, and default tendencies, and heterogeneous attention can make standard Bradley--Terry reward modeling recover misleading rankings. Our analysis shows that learning is governed not by the raw number of labels, but by the amount of attended information each label carries. A case study on human votes over language-model pairs from Chatbot Arena exhibits the predicted signature, a cyclic component of the comparison data that exceeds sampling noise and that no scalar reward can represent; a second case study on perceptual comparisons shows that response times and gaze carry gap information that the labels do not. This perspective suggests that human feedback should be treated not as direct revealed preference, but as an attention-limited measurement process: a weak preference signal may reflect hidden evaluation difficulty rather than genuine indifference.

Human-Machine Collaboration on Generative Meta-Learning: Model and Algorithm

Generalizing machine learning models to environments that differ from their training distribution remains a critical hurdle, particularly when data from the target domain is entirely or partially unavailable. We propose Generative Meta-Learning with Human Feedback (GMHF), a novel framework that bridges this domain gap by leveraging expert intuition to guide data synthesis. Grounded in a theoretical analysis of generalization error, we derive bounds demonstrating that aligning the distribution of generated data with human beliefs regarding the target physics significantly mitigates risk. GMHF operationalizes this insight by employing a Conditional Neural ODE (cNODE) as a generative digital twin, coupled with a Reinforcement Learning (RL) agent. The agent iteratively refines the latent physical parameters of the generated trajectories based on feedback, effectively steering the meta-learner toward the unobserved target distribution. Empirical validation on a nonlinear Duffing oscillator shows that GMHF substantially reduces deployment loss as expert reliability increases, and that the divergence between generated and target data falls under reliable feedback, directly corroborating the divergence-minimisation mechanism predicted by our theory. Further experiments on a non-dynamical probabilistic model confirm that the framework extends beyond ODE-governed systems, establishing human-AI collaboration as a rigorous catalyst for robust generalisation under distribution shift.

How Human Feedback Shapes AI-generated Community Notes

Community Notes, a bridging-based crowd-sourced fact-checking system, has emerged as a new mechanism for moderating misleading information on social media and has been adopted by major platforms including X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and TikTok. Since its introduction, there has been an open question about what role AI could play in scaling and optimizing the system. Recently, X extended its Community Notes system by introducing Collaborative Notes: notes initially drafted by an LLM and iteratively refined based on feedback from human contributors. In this work, we systematically analyze the complete corpus of 19,146 collaborative notes and 211,850 instances of human feedback. First, we develop a taxonomy of human suggestions for improving AI-generated note drafts and find that suggestions involving factual corrections and additional context are most likely to be incorporated, while subjective policy judgments rarely are. Second, we examine changes in helpfulness across versions of collaborative notes and find that human feedback leads to more helpful notes, with the greatest impact coming from suggestions that challenge the main claim in the previous draft, particularly when submitted by more active contributors. Finally, we find that although collaborative notes improve through human feedback, they reach helpful status and are shown on the platform at lower rates than human-only or AI-only notes, with limited human participation emerging as a key bottleneck. Nevertheless, rather than serving as a weaker substitute, collaborative notes tend to play a complementary role, predominantly targeting posts that do not attract human-only or AI-only notes. Our analysis provides an initial description of efforts to use AI to improve crowdsourced content moderation in a real-world moderation system and outlines pathways for future improvements to such features.

Themis: An explainable AI-enabled framework for Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback

Training safe Reinforcement Learning (RL) systems is inherently challenging, with no guarantee of avoiding unwanted behaviors. The most effective defenses against this are (i) transparency through explainability and (ii) alignment via human feedback. While both show promising results, no publicly available framework currently combines them. To address this, we introduce Themis, an XAI-enabled testing and evaluation framework for Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. Themis supports over 200 widely used environments and is easily configurable for experiments in RL, transparency, and alignment. Our results show that Themis can train reward models that match or outperform the environment's true reward signal using human preferences. We also provide a cloud-based platform for collecting human feedback and managing experiments. It is user-friendly, auto-scalable, and supports large participant groups across multiple experiments without extra development overhead. Tests show Themis can support one thousand users in back-to-back experiments on a modest commercial machine.

AI Alignment From Social Choice Perspectives

Alignment from human feedback uses human judgments about model outputs to steer the behavior of language models after pretraining. When those judgments reflect conflicting views of desirable behavior, the learned objective becomes an aggregate determination of what the model should prefer. We survey recent work that has studied this aggregation problem through the lens of social choice theory. We illustrate how the social choice perspective helps identify failure modes in the feedback aggregation layer and reveals a broader design space for handling disagreement in explicit and principled ways.

Hidden Consensus:Preference-Validity Compression in Human Feedback

Standard RLHF pipelines often reduce heterogeneous human judgments into a single scalar reward target. We argue that this reduction can mis-measure alignment in structurally plural societies, where disagreement may reflect culturally, historically, linguistically, regionally, or normatively grounded interpretations rather than annotation noise. We call this failure Preference-Validity Compression, the collapse of multiple plural-valid response options into a single optimization target. Using Malaysia as a diagnostic setting, we analyze RLHF-style feedback aggregation through preference events linking prompts, responses, and acceptability judgments across interpretive frames. Across 321 preference events from 20 participants and 107 trio-annotated prompts, 79% of prompts contain more than one majority-supported response that single-winner aggregation would discard, and apparent dominance gaps between top responses diminish when all majority-supported options are considered. Participants frequently select multiple acceptable responses, and discarded responses demonstrably reflect coherent local, practical, or cultural frames. These findings show that majority aggregation in this corpus measures argmax acceptability rather than plural alignment. We treat this as a measurement-validity issue and argue that future alignment methods should satisfy Validity-Preserving Consistency, remaining stable across plural-valid interpretive frames rather than collapsing them into a single reward target.

Towards Healthy Evolution: Exploring the Role and Mechanisms of Human-Agent Interaction in Self-Evolving Systems

Self-evolving agents improve through continual self-play and self-generated learning signals, but autonomous evolution can also cause capability degradation and safety drift. Although human feedback has proven effective for static and post-trained agents, its role in self-evolving systems remains underexplored. We introduce Agent Norm Correction through Human-like Oversight and Review (ANCHOR), an LLM-based framework that simulates human supervision and delivers feedback at various phases of self-evolution. With ANCHOR, we evaluate two representative open-source self-evolving agent systems across coding, mathematical reasoning, and safety. Our results show that even limited supervision substantially mitigates safety degradation while preserving stable performance on core evolutionary objectives. Further analysis shows that supervision over the output verification phase is the most effective for intervention, whereas increasing supervision frequency yields diminishing returns. These findings provide empirical evidence and practical guidance for designing more stable, controllable, and human-aligned self-evolving agent systems.

Leveraging Human Feedback for Semantically-Relevant Skill Discovery

Unsupervised skill discovery in reinforcement learning aims to intrinsically motivate agents to discover diverse and useful behaviours. However, unconstrained approaches can produce unsafe, unethical, or misaligned behaviours. To mitigate these risks and improve the practical desireability of discovered skills, recent work grounds the discovery process by leveraging human preference feedback. However, preference-based approaches are feedback-inefficient and inherently ill-equipped to deal with skill spaces composed of a variety of different skills such as running, jumping, walking, etc. To overcome this limitation, we introduce semantic labelling, a novel and feedback-efficient approach that leverages human cognitive strengths to identify and label semantically meaningful behaviours. Based on semantic labelling, we propose Semantically Relevant Skill Discovery (SRSD), a novel human-in-the-loop approach that collects semantic labels from human feedback and learns a reward function to encourage skills to be more semantically diverse and relevant. Through our experiments in a 2D navigation environment and four locomotion environments, we demonstrate that SRSD can improve semantic diversity and discover relevant behaviours while scaling effectively to a large variety of behaviours.