When LLM Reward Design Fails: Diagnostic-Driven Refinement for Sparse Structured RL
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
arXiv:2605.28918 (cs)
[Submitted on 27 May 2026]
Title:When LLM Reward Design Fails: Diagnostic-Driven Refinement for Sparse Structured RL
View a PDF of the paper titled When LLM Reward Design Fails: Diagnostic-Driven Refinement for Sparse Structured RL, by Youting Wang and 3 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract:For sparse, structured reinforcement-learning tasks with semantic reward-function interfaces, LLM-generated reward shaping is better framed as debugging than one-shot generation. We study PPO-trained agents using MiniGrid as core evaluation and MuJoCo as boundary stress test. Our audit finds two dominant one-shot failure modes -- reward flooding and semantic/API misunderstanding -- plus a rarer weak-shaping case. We propose diagnostic-driven iterative refinement, where training diagnostics and a failure-mode taxonomy guide targeted reward-function revision. Refinement improves DoorKey-8x8 from 2.3% to 97.6% and KeyCorridor from 31.2% to 86.7% with high seed-to-seed variance. Controls show these gains are not from retrying or extra training: metrics-only re-prompting yields large drops, while a static-vocabulary control recovers much of the gap (87.6%; 70.7%), showing the taxonomy prompt is a major mechanism and dynamic labels provide only partially isolated incremental evidence. Budget-matched and Best-of-3 comparisons separate refinement from selection and training-time effects. Component-removal tests, sensitivity analyses, and an audit against author labels provide converging evidence for the debugging interpretation while revealing calibration limits. Continuous-control results show the boundary: success-based diagnostics can misfire in dense-reward locomotion, and return-trend feedback removes one false-positive mechanism without robust gains. The low-call protocol is a cost contrast with population-based reward search, not a benchmark comparison. In four crossed-variance-design environments, point estimates suggest larger gains when LLM reward-function variance dominates but bootstrap intervals are wide. The method is bounded to sparse structured tasks with reliable interfaces under PPO; fields like event_text may help, hurt, or be neutral.
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG); Information Retrieval (cs.IR) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2605.28918 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2605.28918v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.28918
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled When LLM Reward Design Fails: Diagnostic-Driven Refinement for Sparse Structured RL, by Youting Wang and 3 other authors
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
IArxiv recommender toggle
IArxiv Recommender
(What is IArxiv?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
One Mask to Rule Them All: On Hidden Facts after Editing and How to Find Them
May 29
-
Representation Signatures and Risk-Feedback Alignment in LLM Trading Agents
May 29
-
Mechanistic origins of catastrophic forgetting: why RL preserves circuits better than SFT?
May 29
-
Molecular Lead Optimization via Agentic Tool Planning
May 29
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.