<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>RLHF on Chen Kai Blog</title><link>https://www.chenk.top/en/tags/rlhf/</link><description>Recent content in RLHF on Chen Kai Blog</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.chenk.top/en/tags/rlhf/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>LLM Engineering (4): Post-training — SFT, DPO, RLHF, RLAIF</title><link>https://www.chenk.top/en/llm-engineering/04-post-training/</link><pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.chenk.top/en/llm-engineering/04-post-training/</guid><description>&lt;p>A base model from pretraining can complete text but cannot follow instructions, refuse harmful requests, or maintain a persona—these are post-training behaviors. Post-training is where the gap between a research paper&amp;rsquo;s claims and a production-grade model lies. This chapter covers what each post-training algorithm optimizes, why most reward models are subtly flawed, and the effective methods for 2026.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>&lt;figure class="article-figure">
 &lt;img src="https://blog-pic-ck.oss-cn-beijing.aliyuncs.com/posts/en/llm-engineering/04-post-training/illustration_1.png" alt="LLM Engineering (4): Post-training — SFT, DPO, RLHF, RLAIF — Chapter overview" loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="content-image">
 
&lt;/figure>
&lt;/p></description></item><item><title>Reinforcement Learning (12): RLHF and LLM Applications</title><link>https://www.chenk.top/en/reinforcement-learning/12-rlhf-and-llm-applications/</link><pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.chenk.top/en/reinforcement-learning/12-rlhf-and-llm-applications/</guid><description>&lt;p>GPT-3 (June 2020) and ChatGPT (November 2022) share most of their weights. The base model could write fluent prose, complete code, and continue any pattern you gave it. Yet, when asked a simple question, it might ramble, refuse for the wrong reasons, hallucinate citations, or produce toxic content. The two and a half years between GPT-3 and ChatGPT weren&amp;rsquo;t spent on larger transformers. Instead, they focused on &lt;strong>how to make the model useful&lt;/strong> — a reinforcement-learning problem.&lt;/p></description></item><item><title>Reinforcement Learning (6): PPO and TRPO — Trust Region Policy Optimization</title><link>https://www.chenk.top/en/reinforcement-learning/06-ppo-and-trpo/</link><pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.chenk.top/en/reinforcement-learning/06-ppo-and-trpo/</guid><description>&lt;p>Policy gradients (&lt;a href="https://www.chenk.top/en/reinforcement-learning/03-policy-gradient-and-actor-critic/">Part 3&lt;/a>
) optimise the policy directly, sidestepping discrete &lt;code>argmax&lt;/code> operators and naturally handling stochastic strategies. They have one fatal flaw: &lt;strong>a single overlong step can destroy the policy&lt;/strong>, and because the data distribution is &lt;em>coupled&lt;/em> to the policy, recovery is nearly impossible.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>&lt;strong>Trust-region methods&lt;/strong> make this concrete: bound the change in &lt;em>behaviour&lt;/em>, not in parameters, at every update. TRPO does this with a hard KL constraint and a second-order solver. PPO mimics the same effect with one line of clipped arithmetic. The simpler trick won: PPO trains OpenAI Five, ChatGPT&amp;rsquo;s RLHF stage, and almost every modern robotics policy, remaining the workhorse of applied deep RL.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>