Skip to content
AI Atlas
PaperActive

Using Reward Uncertainty to Induce Diverse Behaviour in Reinforcement Learning

arxiv.org/abs/2606.03962

quality89

Updated 5 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026

paper_01M294GQ4JJB7ZWPC61VRG2EC3

Published
11 Sept 2026
T1 · 5 h ago
arXiv
2606.03962
T1 · 5 h ago
Category
cs.LG
T1 · 5 h ago

As of

Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.

Claim history

9 claims · 9 properties

Official pageofficial_url1

Claim history for Official page
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03962currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Abstractabstract1

Claim history for Abstract
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
-cross Abstract: Classical reinforcement learning (RL) typically seeks a deterministic policy that maximizes the expected sum of a scalar reward. Yet, modern applications such as language model fine-tuning or scientific discovery demand diversity. Existing remedies such as entropy regularization or diversity bonuses often require fragile trade-offs that sacrifice performance for stochasticity or rely on heuristic metrics that can misalign policy rankings. We argue that diversity is more naturally understood as the rational response to uncertainty in the reward. When the reward function is not perfectly known--as is the case with ambiguous preferences or imperfect reward models--committing to a single action can be sub-optimal. Building on this, we propose a fundamental reformulation of the RL objective by replacing the scalar reward with a distribution over reward functions, and applying a non-linear objective over sets of actions. The result is a framework in which calibrated behavioural diversity emerges naturally, remains controllable through the reward function distribution, and is obtained without sacrificing expected reward. Focusing on the contextual bandit setting as commonly used in large language model (LLM) post-training, we derive a principled gradient estimator for this objective and prove that our formulation naturally generalizes both vanilla policy gradient and more recently developed action-set approaches. We provide didactic experiments which complement our theoretical results, and our large-scale empirical results in LLM reasoning further demonstrate that this framework offers a robust and theoretically grounded alternative for complex RL tasks where the traditional formulation of the problem fails to induce the desired breadth of agent behaviour.currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Arxiv announce typearxiv_announce_type1

Claim history for Arxiv announce type
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
replacecurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

arXiv idarxiv_id1

Claim history for arXiv id
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
2606.03962currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Authorsauthors1

Claim history for Authors
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
Anthony GX-Chen, Ankit Anand, Gheorghe Comanici, Zaheer Abbas, Eser Ayg\"un, David Smalling, Shibl Mourad, Doina Precup, Andr\'e Barreto, Mark RowlandcurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Categoriescategories1

Claim history for Categories
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
cs.LG, cs.AIcurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

PDFpdf_url1

Claim history for PDF
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.03962currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Primary categoryprimary_category1

Claim history for Primary category
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
cs.LGcurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Publishedpublished_at1

Claim history for Published
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
11 Sept 2026currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →