A Technical Survey of Reinforcement Learning Techniques for Large Language Models

Abstract

This survey offers a comprehensive foundation on the integration of RL with language models, highlighting prominent algorithms such as Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO), Q-Learning, and Actor-Critic methods. Additionally, it provides an extensive technical overview of RL techniques specifically tailored for LLMs, including foundational methods like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and AI Feedback (RLAIF), as well as advanced strategies such as Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). We systematically analyze their applications across domains, i.e., from code generation to tool-augmented reasoning. Crucially, we move beyond descriptive categorization to provide a rigorous algorithmic analysis of failure modes, mathematically framing the structural bottlenecks and stability trade-offs inherent in policy optimization. We also present a comparative taxonomy based on reward modeling, feedback mechanisms, and optimization strategies. Our evaluation highlights key trends. RLHF remains dominant for alignment, and outcome-based RL such as Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) significantly improves stepwise reasoning. However, persistent challenges such as reward hacking, computational costs, and scalable feedback collection underscore the need for continued innovation. We also explicate the causal factors behind recent benchmark performances, distinguishing between gains derived from architectural scaling versus those stemming from specific optimization objectives. We further discuss emerging directions, including hybrid RL algorithms, verifier-guided training, and multi-objective alignment frameworks. This survey serves as a roadmap for researchers advancing RL-driven LLM development, balancing capability enhancement with safety and scalability.

Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.