Bo Liu

Jiaheng Hu, Jay Shim, Chen Tang et al.

Continual Reinforcement Learning (CRL) for Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models is a promising direction toward self-improving embodied agents that can adapt in openended, evolving environments. However, conventional wisdom from continual learning suggests that naive Sequential Fine-Tuning (Seq. FT) leads to catastrophic forgetting, necessitating complex CRL strategies. In this work, we take a step back and conduct a systematic study of CRL for large pretrained VLAs across three models and five challenging lifelong RL benchmarks. We find that, contrary to established belief, simple Seq. FT with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) is remarkably strong: it achieves high plasticity, exhibits little to no forgetting, and retains strong zero-shot generalization, frequently outperforming more sophisticated CRL methods. Through detailed analysis, we show that this robustness arises from a synergy between the large pretrained model, parameter-efficient adaptation, and on-policy RL. Together, these components reshape the stability-plasticity trade-off, making continual adaptation both stable and scalable. Our results position Sequential Fine-Tuning as a powerful method for continual RL with VLAs and provide new insights into lifelong learning in the large model era. Code is available at github.com/UT-Austin-RobIn/continual-vla-rl.

Yixin Liu, Yue Yu, DiJia Su et al.

Reasoning LLMs-as-Judges, which can benefit from inference-time scaling, provide a promising path for extending the success of reasoning models to non-verifiable domains where the output correctness/quality cannot be directly checked. However, while reasoning judges have shown better performance on static evaluation benchmarks, their effectiveness in actual policy training has not been systematically examined. Therefore, we conduct a rigorous study to investigate the actual impact of non-reasoning and reasoning judges in reinforcement-learning-based LLM alignment. Our controlled synthetic setting, where a "gold-standard" judge (gpt-oss-120b) provides preference annotations to train smaller judges, reveals key differences between non-reasoning and reasoning judges: non-reasoning judges lead to reward hacking easily, while reasoning judges can lead to policies that achieve strong performance when evaluated by the gold-standard judge. Interestingly, we find that the reasoning-judge-trained policies achieve such strong performance by learning to generate highly effective adversarial outputs that can also score well on popular benchmarks such as Arena-Hard by deceiving other LLM-judges. Combined with our further analysis, our study highlights both important findings and room for improvements for applying (reasoning) LLM-judges in non-verifiable LLM post-training.