Critique-guided reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for training LLM agents by augmenting sparse outcome rewards with natural-language feedback. However, current methods often rely on static or offline critic models, which fail to adapt as the policy evolves. In on-policy RL, the agent’s trajectory distribution and error patterns shift over time, causing stationary critics to become stale and providing feedback of diminishing utility. To address this, we introduce ECHO (Evolving Critic for Hindsight-Guided Optimization), a framework that jointly optimizes the policy and critic through a synchronized co-evolutionary loop. ECHO utilizes a cascaded rollout mechanism where the critic generates multiple diagnoses for an initial trajectory, followed by policy refinement to enable group-structured advantage estimation. We address the challenge of learning plateaus via a saturation-aware gain shaping objective, which rewards the critic for inducing incremental improvements in high-performing trajectories. By employing synchronized dual-track GRPO updates, ECHO ensures the critic’s feedback stays synchronized with the evolving policy. Experimental results show that ECHO yields more stable training and higher long-horizon task success across open-world environments.

Travel planning is a natural real-world task to test large language models’ (LLMs) planning and tool-use abilities. Although prior work has studied LLM performance on travel planning, existing settings still differ from real-world needs, mainly due to limited domain coverage, insufficient modeling of users’ implicit preferences in multi-turn conversations, and a lack of evaluation of agents’ capability boundaries. To mitigate these gaps, we propose \mbox{\textbf{TravelBench}}, a benchmark for truly real-world travel planning. We collect user queries, user preferences, and tools from real scenarios, and construct three subtasks—Single-Turn, Multi-Turn, and Unsolvable—to evaluate agents’ three core capabilities in real settings: (1) solving problems independently, (2) interacting with users to elicit implicit preferences, and (3) recognizing the capability boundaries. To enable stable tool invocation and reproducible evaluation, we cache real tool-call results and build a sandbox environment which integrates ten travel-related tools, enabling agents to combine these tools to solve most practical travel planning problems. We evaluate multiple LLMs on TravelBench and find that even advanced models exhibit imbalanced performance across different capabilities. Our further systematic verification demonstrates the stability of the proposed benchmark. TravelBench provides a practical and reproducible benchmark to advance research on LLM agents for real-world travel planning.

In classical Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), Reward Models (RMs) serve as the fundamental signal provider for model alignment. As Large Language Models evolve into agentic systems capable of autonomous tool invocation and complex reasoning, the paradigm of reward modeling faces unprecedented challenges–most notably, the lack of benchmarks specifically designed to assess RM capabilities within tool-integrated environments. To address this gap, we present Plan-RewardBench, a trajectory-level preference benchmark designed to evaluate how well judges distinguish preferred versus distractor agent trajectories in complex tool-using scenarios. Plan-RewardBench covers four representative task families—(i) Safety Refusal, (ii) Tool-Irrelevance / Unavailability, (iii) Complex Planning, and (iv) Robust Error Recovery—comprising validated positive trajectories and confusable hard negatives constructed via multi-model natural rollouts, rule-based perturbations, and minimal-edit LLM perturbations. We benchmark representative RMs (generative, discriminative, and LLM-as-Judge) under a unified pairwise protocol, reporting accuracy trends across varying trajectory lengths and task categories. Furthermore, we provide diagnostic analyses of prevalent failure modes. Our results reveal that all three evaluator families face substantial challenges, with performance degrading sharply on long-horizon trajectories, underscoring the necessity for specialized training in agentic, trajectory-level reward modeling. Ultimately, Plan-RewardBench aims to serve as both a practical evaluation suite and a reusable blueprint for constructing agentic planning preference data.

Enhancing the numerical and logical reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) has become a prominent research focus. Existing approaches exhibit notable limitations: inference-phase techniques, such as Chain of Thought, depend on prompt engineering and pretrained knowledge; sentence-level Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) struggle to ensure step-wise mathematical correctness and often rely on model distillation or human annotations; Reinforcement Learning (RL) methods entail high GPU memory consumption and training instability. To overcome these challenges, we propose Self-training with Process Preference learning using Dynamic value margin (SPPD). SPPD formulates reasoning as a process-based Markov Decision Process (MDP), leveraging the Bellman optimality equation to derive a dynamic value margin for step-level preference optimization. It further incorporates tree-based self-sampling of model responses, eliminating the need for distillation. We theoretically establish that SPPD is equivalent to on-policy policy gradient methods under constrained reward functions. Experimental results on 7B-scale models show consistent superiority across both in-domain and out-of-domain mathematical benchmarks.

In this work, we propose FoRA-UA, a novel method that, using only 1–5% of the standard LoRA’s parameters, achieves state-of-the-art performance across a wide range of tasks. Specifically, we explore scenarios with extremely limited parameter budgets and derive two key insights: (1) fix-sized sparse frequency representations approximate small matrices more accurately; and (2) with a fixed number of trainable parameters, introducing a smaller intermediate representation to approximate larger matrices results in lower construction error. These findings form the foundation of our FoRA-UA method. By inserting a small intermediate parameter set, we achieve greater model compression without sacrificing performance. We evaluate FoRA-UA across diverse tasks, including natural language understanding (NLU), natural language generation (NLG), instruction tuning, and image classification, demonstrating strong generalisation and robustness under extreme compression.

Rewards serve as proxies for human preferences and play a crucial role in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). However, if these rewards are inherently imperfect, exhibiting various biases, they can adversely affect the alignment of large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we collectively define the various biases present in rewards as the problem of reward unfairness. We propose a bias-agnostic method to address the issue of reward fairness from a resource allocation perspective, without specifically designing for each type of bias, yet effectively mitigating them. Specifically, we model preference learning as a resource allocation problem, treating rewards as resources to be allocated while considering the trade-off between utility and fairness in their distribution. We propose two methods, Fairness Regularization and Fairness Coefficient, to achieve fairness in rewards. We apply our methods in both verification and reinforcement learning scenarios to obtain a fairness reward model and a policy model, respectively. Experiments conducted in these scenarios demonstrate that our approach aligns LLMs with human preferences in a more fair manner. Our data and code are available athttps://github.com/shoyua/Towards-Reward-Fairness.