Reinforcement Learning for Temporal Reasoning and Sequential Decision-Making in Language Models

Authors

  • Ermenegildo Farinelli Department of Computer Science, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA.
  • Susannah Harkins Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
  • Manan Naidu Department of Computer Science, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA.

Keywords:

reinforcement learning; temporal reasoning; large language models; sequential decision-making; alignment; AI governance; sustainable AI; robustness; fairness

Abstract

Reinforcement learning has become a central mechanism for aligning large language models with complex objectives, yet its role in temporal reasoning and sequential decision-making remains under-theorized from a systems perspective. This paper examines how reinforcement learning architectures, reward modeling pipelines, inference-time control, and deployment infrastructures interact when language models are asked to reason across time, plan over multiple steps, and act within partially observable environments. It argues that temporal reasoning in language models is not merely a prompt-engineering problem but a socio-technical capability shaped by credit assignment, trajectory filtering, memory design, latency budgets, governance structures, and evaluation regimes. The discussion compares policy-gradient methods, preference optimization, verbal reinforcement, and tool-augmented agent loops, highlighting trade-offs among sample efficiency, interpretability, robustness, and computational sustainability. Special attention is given to small-parameter models, where scalable reasoning path filtering and alignment can reduce training costs but may also constrain representational capacity. The paper further considers fairness, safety, and policy implications when sequential language agents mediate decisions in education, healthcare, finance, and public administration. It concludes that responsible temporal reasoning requires layered governance, reproducible evaluation, energy-aware infrastructure, and institutions capable of auditing multi-step behavior rather than isolated outputs.

References

1. Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction (2nd ed.). MIT Press.

2. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 5998–6008.

3. Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., ... Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877–1901.

4. Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., ... Lowe, R. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 27730–27744.

5. Christiano, P. F., Leike, J., Brown, T., Martic, M., Legg, S., & Amodei, D. (2017). Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 4299–4307.

6. Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., ... Hassabis, D. (2016). Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529(7587), 484–489.

7. Mnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., Rusu, A. A., Veness, J., Bellemare, M. G., ... Hassabis, D. (2015). Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature, 518(7540), 529–533.

8. Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., & Klimov, O. (2017). Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347.

9. Rafailov, R., Sharma, A., Mitchell, E., Ermon, S., Manning, C. D., & Finn, C. (2023). Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 53728–53741.

10. Bai, Y., Jones, A., Ndousse, K., Askell, A., Chen, A., DasSarma, N., ... Kaplan, J. (2022). Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862.

11. Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., & Cao, Y. (2023). ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. International Conference on Learning Representations.

12. Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., & Yao, S. (2023). Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 8634–8652.

13. Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., ... Zhou, D. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 24824–24837.

14. Leike, J., Krueger, D., Everitt, T., Martic, M., Maini, V., & Legg, S. (2018). Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: A research direction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.07871.

15. Li, Q. (2026, May). TrajLite PPO: Scalable Reasoning Path Filtering and Alignment for Small Parameter Large Language Models. In 2026 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Ethics (ICAIDE) (pp. 29-32). IEEE.

16. Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., & Mané, D. (2016). Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565.

17. Russell, S. (2019). Human compatible: Artificial intelligence and the problem of control. Viking.

18. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623.

19. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., ... Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258.

20. Sculley, D., Holt, G., Golovin, D., Davydov, E., Phillips, T., Ebner, D., ... Dennison, D. (2015). Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 28, 2503–2511.

21. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21.

22. Strubell, E., Ganesh, A., & McCallum, A. (2019). Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3645–3650.

23. Henderson, P., Islam, R., Bachman, P., Pineau, J., Precup, D., & Meger, D. (2018). Deep reinforcement learning that matters. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 32(1), 3207–3214.

24. Dafoe, A., Hughes, E., Bachrach, Y., Collins, T., McKee, K. R., Leibo, J. Z., ... Graepel, T. (2020). Open problems in cooperative AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.08630.

25. Gabriel, I. (2020). Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds and Machines, 30, 411–437.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-09