Training agents to operate under strict constraints during deployment, such as limited resource budgets or stringent safety requirements, presents significant challenges, especially when these constraints render the task complex. In this work, we propose a curriculum learning strategy that gradually tightens constraints during training, enabling the agent to incrementally master the deployment requirements. Inspired by self-paced learning techniques in unconstrained reinforcement learning (RL), our approach facilitates a smoother transition to challenging environments by initially training on simplified versions of the constraints and progressively introducing the full deployment conditions. We provide a theoretical analysis using an RL agent in a binary-tree Markov Decision Process (MDP) to demonstrate that our curriculum strategy can accelerate training relative to a baseline approach that imposes the trajectory constraints from the outset. Moreover, we empirically validate the effectiveness and generality of our method across both RL and large language model (LLM) agents in diverse settings, including a binary-tree MDP, a multi-task navigation domain, and a math reasoning task with two benchmarks. These results highlight the potential of curriculum design in enhancing the efficiency and performance of agents operating under complex trajectory constraints during deployment. Moreover, when applied to LLMs, our strategy enables compression of output chain-of-thought tokens, achieving a substantial inference speedup on consumer hardware, demonstrating its effectiveness for resource-constrained deployment.

In this paper, we take a step towards a deeper understanding of learning from human preferences by systematically comparing the paradigm of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) with the recently proposed paradigm of direct preference optimization (DPO). We focus our attention on the class of loglinear policy parametrization and linear reward functions. In order to compare the two paradigms, we first derive minimax statistical bounds on the suboptimality gap induced by both RLHF and DPO, assuming access to an oracle that exactly solves the optimization problems. We provide a detailed discussion on the relative comparison between the two paradigms, simultaneously taking into account the sample size, policy and reward class dimensions, and the regularization temperature. Moreover, we extend our analysis to the approximate optimization setting and derive exponentially decaying convergence rates for both RLHF and DPO. Next, we analyze the setting where the ground-truth reward is not realizable and find that, while RLHF incurs a constant additional error, DPO retains its asymptotically decaying gap by just tuning the temperature accordingly. Finally, we extend our comparison to the Markov decision process setting, where we generalize our results with exact optimization. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to provide such a comparative analysis for RLHF and DPO.