Natasha Jaques
Assistant Professor, CS at 
Senior Research Scientist at 
About
Natasha Jaques's PAIRED uses adversarial environment generation to improve the robustness and generalization of RL agents. She is an Assistant Professor at the University of Washington and a Senior Research Scientist at Google DeepMind. Her research focuses on social RL and multi-agent coordination, including the Social influence as intrinsic motivation method which rewards agents for having a causal effect on others’ actions. She also developed Sequence Tutor to fine-tune sequence models with RL, an approach that contributed to the development of RLHF. Her work frequently incorporates affective computing and human-AI interaction to predict wellbeing outcomes and learn from implicit feedback in dialog. Jaques completed her PhD at the MIT Media Lab and was a visiting postdoc at UC Berkeley.
Experience
2023 – Present
Senior Research Scientist
2023 – Present
2023 – Present
Senior Research Scientist
2020 – 2023
Built methods for adversarial environment generation to improve the robustness of RL agents.
2020 – 2023
Papers111
SPIRAL: Self-Play on Zero-Sum Games Incentivizes Reasoning via Multi-Agent Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning
Recent advances in reinforcement learning have shown that language models can develop sophisticated reasoning through training on tasks with verifiable rewards, but these approaches depend on human-curated problem-answer pairs and domain-specific reward engineering. We introduce SPIRAL, a self-play framework where models learn by playing multi-turn, zero-sum games against continuously improving versions of themselves, generating an automatic curriculum of stronger opponents, and eliminating the need for human supervision. To enable this self-play training at scale, we implement a fully online, multi-turn, multi-agent reinforcement learning system for LLMs and propose role-conditioned advantage estimation (RAE) to stabilize multi-agent training. SPIRAL produces reasoning capabilities that transfer broadly, improving performance by up to 10% across a suite of 8 reasoning benchmarks on 4 different models spanning Qwen and Llama model families, outperforming supervised fine-tuning on 25,000 expert game trajectories. Multi-game training (TicTacToe, Kuhn Poker, Simple Negotiation) yields the strongest results, with improvements observed across both base and instruction-tuned models. Analysis of chain-of-thought traces reveals that games develop distinct cognitive patterns that transfer to improve reasoning performance, with different games developing complementary strengths. Even models which have already been trained on reasoning tasks using RLVR, like DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B, still benefit from our approach. These results demonstrate that zero-sum games naturally develop transferable reasoning capabilities across diverse model architectures and training stages, highlighting a promising direction for autonomous reasoning development. Our code can be found in this https URL.
Achieving Human Level Competitive Robot Table Tennis
Achieving human-level speed and performance on real world tasks is a north star for the robotics research community. This work takes a step towards that goal and presents the first learned robot agent that reaches amateur human-level performance in competitive table tennis. Table tennis is a physically demanding sport which requires human players to undergo years of training to achieve an advanced level of proficiency. In this paper, we contribute (1) a hierarchical and modular policy architecture consisting of (i) low level controllers with their detailed skill descriptors which model the agent's capabilities and help to bridge the sim-to-real gap and (ii) a high level controller that chooses the low level skills, (2) techniques for enabling zero-shot sim-to-real including an iterative approach to defining the task distribution that is grounded in the real-world and defines an automatic curriculum, and (3) real time adaptation to unseen opponents. Policy performance was assessed through 29 robot vs. human matches of which the robot won 45% (13/29). All humans were unseen players and their skill level varied from beginner to tournament level. Whilst the robot lost all matches vs. the most advanced players it won 100% matches vs. beginners and 55% matches vs. intermediate players, demonstrating solidly amateur human-level performance. Videos of the matches can be viewed at this https URL
Evaluating Generalization Capabilities of LLM-Based Agents in Mixed-Motive Scenarios Using Concordia
Large Language Model (LLM) agents have demonstrated impressive capabilities for social interaction and are increasingly being deployed in situations where they might engage with both human and artificial agents. These interactions represent a critical frontier for LLM-based agents, yet existing evaluation methods fail to measure how well these capabilities generalize to novel social situations. In this paper, we introduce a method for evaluating the ability of LLM-based agents to cooperate in zero-shot, mixed-motive environments using Concordia, a natural language multi-agent simulation environment. Our method measures general cooperative intelligence by testing an agent's ability to identify and exploit opportunities for mutual gain across diverse partners and contexts. We present empirical results from the NeurIPS 2024 Concordia Contest, where agents were evaluated on their ability to achieve mutual gains across a suite of diverse scenarios ranging from negotiation to collective action problems. Our findings reveal significant gaps between current agent capabilities and the robust generalization required for reliable cooperation, particularly in scenarios demanding persuasion and norm enforcement.
AutoCode: LLMs as Problem Setters for Competitive Programming
Writing competitive programming problems is exacting. Authors must: set constraints, input distributions, and edge cases that rule out shortcuts; target specific algorithms (e.g., max-flow, dynamic programming, data structures); and calibrate complexity beyond the reach of most competitors. We argue that this makes for an ideal test of general large language model capabilities and study whether they can do this reliably. We introduce AutoCode, which uses multiple rounds of validation to yield competition-grade problem statements and test cases. On held-out problems, AutoCode test suites approach 99% consistency with official judgments, a significant improvement over current state-of-the-art methods like HardTests, which achieve less than 81%. Furthermore, starting with a random seed problem, AutoCode can create novel variants with reference and brute-force solutions. By cross-verifying these generated solutions against test cases, we can further filter out malformed problems. Our system ensures high correctness, as verified by human experts. AutoCode successfully produces novel problems judged by Grandmaster-level (top 0.3%) competitive programmers to be of contest quality.
RLVE: Scaling Up Reinforcement Learning for Language Models with Adaptive Verifiable Environments
We introduce Reinforcement Learning (RL) with Adaptive Verifiable Environments (RLVE), an approach using verifiable environments that procedurally generate problems and provide algorithmically verifiable rewards, to scale up RL for language models (LMs). RLVE enables each verifiable environment to dynamically adapt its problem difficulty distribution to the policy model's capabilities as training progresses. In contrast, static data distributions often lead to vanishing learning signals when problems are either too easy or too hard for the policy. To implement RLVE, we create RLVE-Gym, a large-scale suite of 400 verifiable environments carefully developed through manual environment engineering. Using RLVE-Gym, we show that environment scaling, i.e., expanding the collection of training environments, consistently improves generalizable reasoning capabilities. RLVE with joint training across all 400 environments in RLVE-Gym yields a 3.37% absolute average improvement across six reasoning benchmarks, starting from one of the strongest 1.5B reasoning LMs. By comparison, continuing this LM's original RL training yields only a 0.49% average absolute gain despite using over 3x more compute. We release our code publicly.
Demystifying Reinforcement Learning Post-Training of Language Models
Reinforcement learning (RL) post-training has emerged as a powerful framework for enhancing the capabilities of large language models (LLMs), enabling impressive reasoning, math, and coding capabilities. Yet for many researchers and practitioners, the principles behind classical RL remain a "black box". In this work, we deconstruct the RL post-training algorithm, investigating each step to clarify what is actually happening beneath the surface. By isolating the mechanics of RL with Verifiable Rewards in a controlled and simplified environment, we examine how RL outcomes are shaped by the base model's prior distribution, the granularity of the reward signal, the diversity of the prompt distribution, and model scale. We use the entropy of the policy's output distribution as a lens to compare the distributions learned through pretraining, SFT, and RL post-training, revealing how each stage shapes model certainty. Our investigation sheds light on how these choices interact to affect post-training success. For example, we show that the effect of so-called 'spurious rewards' depends on the prompt distribution used for post-training. We also provide insight into why the success of RL post-training depends on whether the base model already places sufficient probability mass on the desired behavior, linking it to the classical concept of exploration in RL. Ultimately, we provide this primer as a resource to those in the NLP community wishing to incorporate RL as a tool in their toolbox.
LongCoT: Benchmarking Long-Horizon Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
As language models are increasingly deployed for complex autonomous tasks, their ability to reason accurately over longer horizons becomes critical. An essential component of this ability is planning and managing a long, complex chain-of-thought (CoT). We introduce LongCoT, a scalable benchmark of 2,500 expert-designed problems spanning chemistry, mathematics, computer science, chess, and logic to isolate and directly measure the long-horizon CoT reasoning capabilities of frontier models. Problems consist of a short input with a verifiable answer; solving them requires navigating a graph of interdependent steps that span tens to hundreds of thousands of reasoning tokens. Each local step is individually tractable for frontier models, so failures reflect long-horizon reasoning limitations. At release, the best models achieve <10% accuracy (GPT 5.2: 9.8%; Gemini 3 Pro: 6.1%) on LongCoT, revealing a substantial gap in current capabilities. Overall, LongCoT provides a rigorous measure of long-horizon reasoning, tracking the ability of frontier models to reason reliably over extended periods.
How LLMs Distort Our Written Language
Large language models (LLMs) are used by over a billion people globally, most often to assist with writing. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs not only alter the voice and tone of human writing but also consistently alter the intended meaning. First, we conduct a human user study to understand how people actually interact with LLMs when using them for writing. Our findings reveal that extensive LLM use led to a nearly 70% increase in essays that remained neutral in answering the topic question. Significantly more heavy LLM users reported that the writing was less creative and not in their voice. Next, using a dataset of human-written essays that was collected in 2021 before the widespread release of LLMs, we study how asking an LLM to revise the essay based on the human-written feedback in the dataset induces large changes in the resulting content and meaning. We find that even when LLMs are prompted with expert feedback and asked to only make grammar edits, they still change the text in a way that significantly alters its semantic meaning. We then examine LLM-generated text in the wild, specifically focusing on the 21% of AI-generated scientific peer reviews at a recent top AI conference. We find that LLM-generated reviews place significantly less weight on clarity and significance of the research, and assign scores that, on average, are a full point higher. These findings highlight a misalignment between the perceived benefit of AI use and an implicit, consistent effect on the semantics of human writing, motivating future work on how widespread AI writing will affect our cultural and scientific institutions.
Enhancing Personalized Multi-Turn Dialogue with Curiosity Reward
Effective conversational agents like large language models (LLMs) must personalize their interactions to adapt to user preferences, personalities, and attributes across diverse domains like education and healthcare. Current methods like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), often prioritize helpfulness and safety but fall short in fostering truly empathetic, adaptive, and personalized dialogues. Existing personalization approaches typically rely on extensive user history, limiting their effectiveness for new or context-limited users. To address these limitations, we propose leveraging a user model to incorporate a curiosity-based intrinsic reward into multi-turn RLHF. This novel reward mechanism encourages the LLM agent to actively infer user traits by optimizing conversations to improve its user model's accuracy. Consequently, the agent delivers more personalized interactions by learning more about the user. We demonstrate our method's effectiveness in two distinct domains: significantly improving personalization performance in a conversational recommendation task, and personalizing conversations for different learning styles in an educational setting. We show improved generalization capabilities compared to traditional multi-turn RLHF, all while maintaining conversation quality. Our method offers a promising solution for creating more personalized, adaptive, and engaging conversational agents.
Metrics
Citations per year
Coauthors
