Ceyao Zhang
Publications
System Design for Maintaining Internal State Consistency in Long-Horizon Robotic Tabletop Games
Long-horizon tabletop games pose a distinct systems challenge for robotics: small perceptual or execution errors can invalidate accumulated task state, propagate across decision-making modules, and ultimately derail interaction. This paper studies how to maintain internal state consistency in turn-based, multi-human robotic tabletop games through deliberate system design rather than isolated component improvement. Using Mahjong as a representative long-horizon setting, we present an integrated architecture that explicitly maintains perceptual, execution, and interaction state, partitions high-level semantic reasoning from time-critical perception and control, and incorporates verified action primitives with tactile-triggered recovery to prevent premature state corruption. We further introduce interaction-level monitoring mechanisms to detect turn violations and hidden-information breaches that threaten execution assumptions. Beyond demonstrating complete-game operation, we provide an empirical characterization of failure modes, recovery effectiveness, cross-module error propagation, and hardware-algorithm trade-offs observed during deployment. Our results show that explicit partitioning, monitored state transitions, and recovery mechanisms are critical for sustaining executable consistency over extended play, whereas monolithic or unverified pipelines lead to measurable degradation in end-to-end reliability. The proposed system serves as an empirical platform for studying system-level design principles in long-horizon, turn-based interaction.
Does LLM Alignment Really Need Diversity? An Empirical Study of Adapting RLVR Methods for Moral Reasoning
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has achieved remarkable success in logical reasoning tasks, yet whether large language model (LLM) alignment requires fundamentally different approaches remains unclear. Given the apparent tolerance for multiple valid responses in moral reasoning, a natural hypothesis is that alignment tasks inherently require diversity-seeking distribution-matching algorithms rather than reward-maximizing policy-based methods. We conduct the first comprehensive empirical study comparing both paradigms on MoReBench. To enable stable RLVR training, we build a rubric-grounded reward pipeline by training a Qwen3-1.7B judge model. Contrary to our hypothesis, we find that distribution-matching approaches do not demonstrate significant advantages over reward-maximizing methods as expected on alignment tasks. Through semantic visualization mapping high-reward responses to semantic space, we demonstrate that moral reasoning exhibits more concentrated high-reward distributions than mathematical reasoning, where diverse solution strategies yield similarly high rewards. This counter-intuitive finding explains why mode-seeking optimization proves equally or more effective for alignment tasks. Our results suggest that alignment tasks do not inherently require diversity-preserving algorithms, and standard reward-maximizing RLVR methods can effectively transfer to moral reasoning without explicit diversity mechanisms.