Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.

Runlong Zhou

dblp:290/8755 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
7ranked-venue papers
3as first author
7since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 3 first-author · 7 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
7 papers
Reinforcement learning · 62% Language models and text generation · 14% Learning theory · 11%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Computational complexity · 100%

Topics — the 22 heaviest of 23, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-based reinforcement learning
1.532024
Sharp Variance-Dependent Bounds in Reinforcement Learning: Best of Both Worlds in Stochastic and Deterministic Environments · ICML 2023
Horizon-Free and Variance-Dependent Reinforcement Learning for Latent Markov Decision Processes · ICML 2023
Free from Bellman Completeness: Trajectory Stitching via Model-based Return-conditioned Supervised Learning · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
markov decision process
1.522025
Sharp Gap-Dependent Variance-Aware Regret Bounds for Tabular MDPs · NeurIPS 2025
Sharp Variance-Dependent Bounds in Reinforcement Learning: Best of Both Worlds in Stochastic and Deterministic Environments · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
regret bounds
1.522025
Sharp Gap-Dependent Variance-Aware Regret Bounds for Tabular MDPs · NeurIPS 2025
Sharp Variance-Dependent Bounds in Reinforcement Learning: Best of Both Worlds in Stochastic and Deterministic Environments · ICML 2023
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
alignment
0.912025
The Crucial Role of Samplers in Online Direct Preference Optimization · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
convergence analysis
0.912025
The Crucial Role of Samplers in Online Direct Preference Optimization · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › preference optimization
direct preference optimization
0.912025
The Crucial Role of Samplers in Online Direct Preference Optimization · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › regret minimization
gap-dependent regret
0.912025
Sharp Gap-Dependent Variance-Aware Regret Bounds for Tabular MDPs · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
sampling
0.912025
The Crucial Role of Samplers in Online Direct Preference Optimization · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › markov decision process › finite markov decision processes
tabular MDP
0.912025
Sharp Gap-Dependent Variance-Aware Regret Bounds for Tabular MDPs · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › regret minimization
horizon-free regret
0.822023
Horizon-Free and Variance-Dependent Reinforcement Learning for Latent Markov Decision Processes · ICML 2023
Stochastic Shortest Path: Minimax, Parameter-Free and Towards Horizon-Free Regret · NeurIPS 2021
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model fine-tuning
0.812024
Reflect-RL: Two-Player Online RL Fine-Tuning for LMs · ACL (1) 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
offline reinforcement learning
0.812024
Free from Bellman Completeness: Trajectory Stitching via Model-based Return-conditioned Supervised Learning · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › online decision making
online reinforcement learning
0.812024
Reflect-RL: Two-Player Online RL Fine-Tuning for LMs · ACL (1) 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › offline reinforcement learning
return-conditioned supervised learning
0.812024
Free from Bellman Completeness: Trajectory Stitching via Model-based Return-conditioned Supervised Learning · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › offline reinforcement learning
trajectory stitching
0.812024
Free from Bellman Completeness: Trajectory Stitching via Model-based Return-conditioned Supervised Learning · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › partially observable reinforcement learning
latent markov decision process
0.712023
Horizon-Free and Variance-Dependent Reinforcement Learning for Latent Markov Decision Processes · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-free reinforcement learning
0.712023
Sharp Variance-Dependent Bounds in Reinforcement Learning: Best of Both Worlds in Stochastic and Deterministic Environments · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
regret minimization
0.712023
Horizon-Free and Variance-Dependent Reinforcement Learning for Latent Markov Decision Processes · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › regret minimization
variance-dependent regret
0.712023
Sharp Variance-Dependent Bounds in Reinforcement Learning: Best of Both Worlds in Stochastic and Deterministic Environments · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning › regret bounds
minimax regret
0.512021
Stochastic Shortest Path: Minimax, Parameter-Free and Towards Horizon-Free Regret · NeurIPS 2021
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning under uncertainty
stochastic shortest path
0.512021
Stochastic Shortest Path: Minimax, Parameter-Free and Towards Horizon-Free Regret · NeurIPS 2021
Computational complexity
lower bounds
0.212023
Horizon-Free and Variance-Dependent Reinforcement Learning for Latent Markov Decision Processes · ICML 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

posterior sampling · 0.9monotonic value propagation · 0.9lower bound analysis · 0.9logit mixing · 0.9direct preference optimization · 0.9return-conditioned supervised learning · 0.8reinforcement learning · 0.8reflection · 0.8model-based forward sampling · 0.8dynamic programming · 0.8value-optimistic solver · 0.7truncation method · 0.7symmetrization · 0.7model-optimistic solver · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 The Crucial Role of Samplers in Online Direct Preference Optimization
abstract
Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has emerged as a stable, scalable, and efficient solution for language model alignment. Despite its empirical success, the optimization properties, particularly the impact of samplers on its convergence rates, remain under-explored. In this paper, we provide a rigorous analysis of DPO's convergence rates with different sampling strategies under the exact gradient setting, revealing a surprising separation: uniform sampling achieves $\textbf{linear}$ convergence, while our proposed online sampler achieves $\textbf{quadratic}$ convergence. We further adapt the sampler to practical settings by incorporating posterior distributions and logit mixing, demonstrating improvements over previous methods. For example, it outperforms vanilla DPO by over $7.4$% on Safe-RLHF dataset. Our results not only offer insights into the theoretical understanding of DPO but also pave the way for further algorithm designs.
Ruizhe Shi, Runlong Zhou, Simon S. Du
ICLR2
2025 Sharp Gap-Dependent Variance-Aware Regret Bounds for Tabular MDPs
abstract
We consider gap-dependent regret bounds for episodic MDPs. We show that the Monotonic Value Propagation (MVP) algorithm (Zhang et al. [2024]) achieves a variance-aware gap-dependent regret bound of $$\tilde{O}\left(\left(\sum_{\Delta_h(s,a)>0} \frac{H^2 \log K \land \mathtt{Var}\_{\max}^{\textup{c}}}{\Delta_h(s,a)} +\sum_{\Delta_h(s,a)=0}\frac{ H^2 \land \mathtt{Var}\_{\max}^{\textup{c}}}{\Delta_{\mathrm{min}}} + SAH^4 (S \lor H) \right) \log K\right),$$ where $H$ is the planning horizon, $S$ is the number of states, $A$ is the number of actions, $K$ is the number of episodes, and $\tilde{O}$ hides $\mathsf{poly} \log (S, A, H, 1 / \Delta\_{\mathrm{min}}, 1 / \delta)$ terms. Here, $\Delta_h(s,a) =V_h^* (a) - Q_h^* (s, a)$ represents the suboptimality gap and $\Delta_{\mathrm{min}} := \min_{\Delta_h (s,a) > 0} \Delta_h(s,a)$. The term $\mathtt{Var}\_{\max}^{\textup{c}}$ denotes the maximum conditional total variance, calculated as the maximum over all $(\pi, h, s)$ tuples of the expected total variance under policy $\pi$ conditioned on trajectories visiting state $s$ at step $h$. $\mathtt{Var}\_{\max}^{\textup{c}}$ characterizes the maximum randomness encountered when learning any $(h, s)$ pair. Our result stems from a novel analysis of the weighted sum of the suboptimality gap and can be potentially adapted for other algorithms. To complement the study, we establish a lower bound of $$\Omega \left( \sum_{\Delta_h(s,a)>0} \frac{H^2 \land \mathtt{Var}\_{\max}^{\textup{c}}}{\Delta_h(s,a)}\cdot \log K\right),$$ demonstrating the necessity of dependence on $\mathtt{Var}\_{\max}^{\textup{c}}$ even when the maximum unconditional total variance (without conditioning on $(h, s)$) approaches zero.
Shulun Chen, Runlong Zhou, Maryam Fazel, Simon S. Du
NeurIPS2
2024 Reflect-RL: Two-Player Online RL Fine-Tuning for LMs
abstract
Environment Observation You are in the middle of a room.You see a cabinet 18, a cabinet 3, a ... Possible Actions 1. Close microwave 2. Put tomato in microwave 3. Go to cabinet ... Reflect Agent ReflectionTaking the tomato to the microwave is correct.Next step is to place the tomato ...
Runlong Zhou, Simon S. Du, Beibin Li
ACL (1)1
2024 Free from Bellman Completeness: Trajectory Stitching via Model-based Return-conditioned Supervised Learning
abstract
Off-policy dynamic programming (DP) techniques such as $Q$-learning have proven to be important in sequential decision-making problems. In the presence of function approximation, however, these techniques often diverge due to the absence of Bellman completeness in the function classes considered, a crucial condition for the success of DP-based methods. In this paper, we show how off-policy learning techniques based on return-conditioned supervised learning (RCSL) are able to circumvent these challenges of Bellman completeness, converging under significantly more relaxed assumptions inherited from supervised learning. We prove there exists a natural environment in which if one uses two-layer multilayer perceptron as the function approximator, the layer width needs to grow *linearly* with the state space size to satisfy Bellman completeness while a constant layer width is enough for RCSL. These findings take a step towards explaining the superior empirical performance of RCSL methods compared to DP-based methods in environments with near-optimal datasets. Furthermore, in order to learn from sub-optimal datasets, we propose a simple framework called MBRCSL, granting RCSL methods the ability of dynamic programming to stitch together segments from distinct trajectories. MBRCSL leverages learned dynamics models and forward sampling to accomplish trajectory stitching while avoiding the need for Bellman completeness that plagues all dynamic programming algorithms. We propose both theoretical analysis and experimental evaluation to back these claims, outperforming state-of-the-art model-free and model-based offline RL algorithms across several simulated robotics problems.
Zhaoyi Zhou, Chuning Zhu, Runlong Zhou, Qiwen Cui, Abhishek Gupta 0004, Simon S. Du
ICLR3
2023 Horizon-Free and Variance-Dependent Reinforcement Learning for Latent Markov Decision Processes
abstract
We study regret minimization for reinforcement learning (RL) in Latent Markov Decision Processes (LMDPs) with context in hindsight. We design a novel model-based algorithmic framework which can be instantiated with both a model-optimistic and a value-optimistic solver. We prove an $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{\mathsf{Var}^\star M \Gamma S A K})$ regret bound where $\tilde{O}$ hides logarithm factors, $M$ is the number of contexts, $S$ is the number of states, $A$ is the number of actions, $K$ is the number of episodes, $\Gamma \le S$ is the maximum transition degree of any state-action pair, and $\mathsf{Var}^\star$ is a variance quantity describing the determinism of the LMDP. The regret bound only scales logarithmically with the planning horizon, thus yielding the first (nearly) horizon-free regret bound for LMDP. This is also the first problem-dependent regret bound for LMDP. Key in our proof is an analysis of the total variance of alpha vectors (a generalization of value functions), which is handled with a truncation method. We complement our positive result with a novel $\Omega(\sqrt{\mathsf{Var}^\star M S A K})$ regret lower bound with $\Gamma = 2$, which shows our upper bound minimax optimal when $\Gamma$ is a constant for the class of variance-bounded LMDPs. Our lower bound relies on new constructions of hard instances and an argument inspired by the symmetrization technique from theoretical computer science, both of which are technically different from existing lower bound proof for MDPs, and thus can be of independent interest.
Runlong Zhou, Ruosong Wang, Simon S. Du
ICML1
2023 Sharp Variance-Dependent Bounds in Reinforcement Learning: Best of Both Worlds in Stochastic and Deterministic Environments
abstract
We study variance-dependent regret bounds for Markov decision processes (MDPs). Algorithms with variance-dependent regret guarantees can automatically exploit environments with low variance (e.g., enjoying constant regret on deterministic MDPs). The existing algorithms are either variance-independent or suboptimal. We first propose two new environment norms to characterize the fine-grained variance properties of the environment. For model-based methods, we design a variant of the MVP algorithm (Zhang et al., 2021a). We apply new analysis techniques to demonstrate that this algorithm enjoys variance-dependent bounds with respect to the norms we propose. In particular, this bound is simultaneously minimax optimal for both stochastic and deterministic MDPs, the first result of its kind. We further initiate the study on model-free algorithms with variance-dependent regret bounds by designing a reference-function-based algorithm with a novel capped-doubling reference update schedule. Lastly, we also provide lower bounds to complement our upper bounds.
Runlong Zhou, Simon S. Du
ICML1
2021 Stochastic Shortest Path: Minimax, Parameter-Free and Towards Horizon-Free Regret
abstract
We study the problem of learning in the stochastic shortest path (SSP) setting, where an agent seeks to minimize the expected cost accumulated before reaching a goal state. We design a novel model-based algorithm EB-SSP that carefully skews the empirical transitions and perturbs the empirical costs with an exploration bonus to induce an optimistic SSP problem whose associated value iteration scheme is guaranteed to converge. We prove that EB-SSP achieves the minimax regret rate $\widetilde{O}(B_{\star} \sqrt{S A K})$, where $K$ is the number of episodes, $S$ is the number of states, $A$ is the number of actions and $B_{\star}$ bounds the expected cumulative cost of the optimal policy from any state, thus closing the gap with the lower bound. Interestingly, EB-SSP obtains this result while being parameter-free, i.e., it does not require any prior knowledge of $B_{\star}$, nor of $T_{\star}$, which bounds the expected time-to-goal of the optimal policy from any state. Furthermore, we illustrate various cases (e.g., positive costs, or general costs when an order-accurate estimate of $T_{\star}$ is available) where the regret only contains a logarithmic dependence on $T_{\star}$, thus yielding the first (nearly) horizon-free regret bound beyond the finite-horizon MDP setting.
Jean Tarbouriech, Runlong Zhou, Simon S. Du, Matteo Pirotta, Michal Valko, Alessandro Lazaric
NeurIPS2