Equation 24 · The Main Technical Approaches to AI Alignment, Compared
What does this equation mean?
Read the formula alongside the article passage below. Each part has a deeper page with its role in the equation, the supporting passage and nearby citations.
This mathematical expression combines the displayed quantities; its precise role follows from the surrounding article text. Read the equation part by part below; each part has a contextual explanation and a link to its mathematical background.
Read it piece by piece
Symbol G
G is a part of this expression. Its role is fixed by the surrounding article and by the operations shown in the formula.
How to interpret it
Read this expression with the definitions, units, and assumptions supplied by the article.
What the article says around this equation
normalizing each sampled response’s reward against the mean and standard deviation of a group of G responses to the same prompt rather than against a separately trained critic network [ 13 ] . Lambert and colleagues, building the fully open Tulu 3 post-training recipe, named the general approach explicitly, describing it as “a novel method we call Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards,” and used it alongside supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization rather than as a wholesale replacement for either [ 15 ] . The clearest large-scale demonstration is DeepSeek-R1: Guo and colleagues report training a model with reinforcement learning alone against a purely rule-based reward —…
Read the full surrounding passage
normalizing each sampled response’s reward against the mean and standard deviation of a group of G responses to the same prompt rather than against a separately trained critic network [ 13 ] . Lambert and colleagues, building the fully open Tulu 3 post-training recipe, named the general approach explicitly, describing it as “a novel method we call Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards,” and used it alongside supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization rather than as a wholesale replacement for either [ 15 ] . The clearest large-scale demonstration is DeepSeek-R1: Guo and colleagues report training a model with reinforcement learning alone against a purely rule-based reward — combining an answer-correctness check with a format check, and deliberately avoiding a learned reward model because, in their account, a neural reward model “may suffer from reward hacking in large-scale reinforcement learning” — and observed pass@1 accuracy on the AIME 2024 competition-mathematics benchmark rise from 15.6 percent to 71.0 percent over training, reaching 86.7 percent with majority voting across 64 samples [ 14 ] . Formally, the reward itself is as simple as the reward model above was elaborate:
Sources cited in the surrounding passage
- [13] DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models ↗
- [15] Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training ↗
- [14] DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning ↗
These citations give research context. Read each source to check which claims it supports.
Return to The Main Technical Approaches to AI Alignment, Compared