Reinforcement learning (RL) finetuning has become a key technique for enhancing the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). However, its effectiveness critically depends on the selection of training data. Recent advances underscore the importance of online prompt selection methods, which typically concentrate training on partially solved or moderately challenging examples under the current policy, thereby yielding more effective model updates. While significantly accelerating RL finetuning in terms of training steps, they also incur substantial computational overhead by requiring extensive LLM rollouts over large candidate batches to identify informative samples, an expense that can outweigh the finetuning process itself. To address this challenge, this work proposes Dynamics-Predictive Sampling (DPS), which online predicts and selects informative prompts by inferring their learning dynamics prior to costly rollouts. Specifically, we introduce a new perspective by modeling each prompt's solving progress during RL finetuning as a dynamical system, where the extent of solving is represented as the state and the transition is characterized by a hidden Markov model. Using historical rollout reward signals, we perform online Bayesian inference to estimate evolving state distributions, and the inference outcome provides a predictive prior for efficient prompt selection without rollout-intensive filtering. Empirical results across diverse reasoning tasks, including mathematics, planning, and visual geometry, demonstrate that DPS substantially reduces redundant rollouts, accelerates the training process, and achieves superior reasoning performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Dynamics-Predictive Sampling (DPS) framework. DPS models each prompt’s solving progress in RL finetuning as a dynamical system, treating solving extent as the state with transitions characterized by a hidden Markov model. By employing lightweight inference, it predicts and selects informative (partially solved) prompts online, without requiring rollout-intensive filtering.
Figure 2: Proportion of partially solved prompts (Effective Sample Ratio) within sampled batches under different data sampling strategies, along with prediction metrics of DPS.
Figure 3: Confusion Matrix (CM) for DPS predictions at different training steps across tasks.
Figure 4: Training curves of different methods across reasoning tasks with varying model sizes. The curves in Math are smoothed with a window size of 5 . DS serves as a high-resource oracle baseline.
Method
AIME24
AMC23
MATH500
Minerva.
Olympiad.
Avg. ↑
Rollouts ↓
Runtime ↓
R1-Distill-1.5B
18.33
51.73
76.64
23.83
35.31
41.17
-
-
+US
26.46
63.18
82.78
27.46
43.00
48.57
737k
27h
+HR
28.13
64.61
82.88
27.37
43.15
49.23
737k
28h
+DS (Oracle)
31.88
67.32
84.79
29.18
46.83
52.00
2933k
89h
+DPS (Ours)
32.71
67.77
84.95
29.09
46.11
52.13
737k
32h
R1-Distill-7B
37.71
68.45
86.94
34.74
46.94
54.95
-
-
Table 1: Evaluation across mathematics benchmarks. ‘+’ represents finetuning with the method.
Method
CD-34
CD-4
Rollouts
Qwen2.5-3B
-
-
-
+US
69.87
39.42
246k
+HR
70.19
42.10
246k
+DS (Oracle)
74.95
47.67
1141k
+DPS (Ours)
74.27
47.78
246k
Qwen2.5-7B
-
-
-
Table 2: Evaluation on Countdown.
Figure 5: Performance and prediction accuracy of DPS under varying non-stationary decay ratios λ .
Figure 6: Performance and effective sample ratios of DPS under different solving-state partitions.
Figure 7: (a) Statistics of sample counts across the dataset on the Countdown 3B task. (b) DPS prediction accuracies for different types of prompts on the Countdown 3B task.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 8: Number of ineffective prompts (fully unsolved or fully solved) in training batches sampled with different strategies across tasks.
Figure 9: Confusion Matrix (CM) for DPS prediction at different training steps across tasks.
Method
Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct
Test Score ↑
Rollouts ↓
Test Score ↑
Rollouts ↓
US
40.69
492k
46.22
328k
HR
40.44
492k
46.52
328k
DS (Oracle)
44.33
1262k
48.11
782k
DPS (Ours)
44.47
492k
47.78
328k
Appendix
Table 3: Evaluation results on Geometry.
Method
ARC-c
MMLU-Pro
Avg. ↑
Rollouts ↓
Runtime ↓
R1-Distill-1.5B
41.81
21.02
31.42
-
-
+US
43.17
21.24
32.21
737k
27h
+HR
42.83
21.03
31.93
737k
28h
+DS (Oracle)
44.88
23.25
34.07
2933k
89h
+DPS (Ours)
46.16
23.41
34.79
737k
32h
R1-Distill-7B
74.32
50.44
62.38
-
-
Appendix
Table 4: Evaluation on general reasoning benchmarks for models trained on the MATH dataset. Performance is measured by Pass@1 accuracy with a maximum response length of 8k tokens. ’+’ represents finetuning with the method.
Figure 10: Comparisons of different sampling methods using the additional model Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct. (a) Performance and effective sample ratios. (b) Prediction metrics of DPS.
Method
AIME24
AMC23
MATH500
Minerva.
Olympiad.
Avg. ↑
Rollouts ↓
Runtime ↓
R1-Distill-1.5B
28.12
61.67
83.18
26.54
43.33
48.57
-
-
+US
31.46
67.70
84.22
27.94
45.06
51.28
737k
27h
+HR
30.42
66.49
84.30
27.53
45.06
50.76
737k
28h
+DS (Oracle)
32.92
69.95
86.44
30.26
49.66
53.85
2933k
89h
+DPS (Ours)
37.92
71.16
85.84
29.14
48.32
54.48
737k
32h
Appendix
Table 5: Evaluation across mathematics benchmarks under a maximum response length of 32k. ’+’ represents finetuning with the method. Evaluation is based on average Pass@1 accuracy over 16 responses per prompt.
Figure 11: Training curves over the number of rollouts generated by LLM during training.
Figure 12: Performance and prediction accuracy of DPS under different transition priors.
Figure 13: Average response length in the sampled batch during MATH training.
Figure 14: Average prompt length in the sampled batch during MATH training.
LLM train
LLM generation
DPS (sample + update)
Dataset size
any
any
104 (MATH)
105
106
107
Runtime (s)
580
520
0.0005+0.002
0.004+0.02
0.06+0.2
0.6+1.8
Memory (GiB)
≈ 600 (GPU)
≈ 600 (GPU)
≈ 0.0009
≈ 0.009
≈ 0.09
≈ 0.9
Appendix
Table 6: Computational cost of different operations across varying dataset sizes, measured by per-step runtime and memory usage during the finetuning of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B (8 A100 GPUs, batch size 256). The results for LLM training and generation are evaluated on the MATH dataset, while those for DPS are obtained on pseudo-datasets that emulate large-scale scenarios.
LLM train
LLM generation
DS sample (baseline)
DPS (sample + update)
Model size
1.5B
7B
1.5B
7B
1.5B
7B
any
Runtime (s)
170
580
200
520
≈3× 200
≈3× 520
0.0005+0.002
Appendix
Table 7: Computational cost of different operations across varying LLM sizes, measured by per-step runtime for finetuning on the MATH dataset (8 A100 GPUs, batch size 256). The 1.5B and 7B models refer to DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B, respectively.
Figure 15: Performance of DPS and Uniform Sampling (US) under different response group sizes on the Countdown 3B task.
Figure 16: Effective sample ratios and prediction accuracies under different response group sizes on the Countdown 3B task.
Figure 17: Evaluation of the entropy regularized selection scheme for DPS on Countdown 3B task.
Figure 18: Comparison with additional baselines in terms of performance and effective sample ratio.
Figure 19: Evaluation in a precess reward setting on the Countdown 3B task. Sampling strategies are applied to the PRM-based method PRIME (response group k=4 , base RL algorithm RLOO).
Reinforcement learning (RL) finetuning significantly enhances the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), yet its effectiveness critically depends on selecting prompts of appropriate difficulty for the current policy. This is challenging because prompt difficulty evolves throughout training. Existing online methods therefore face a trade-off: evaluation-based approaches are accurate but expensive, while prediction-based approaches are efficient but typically assume stationary difficulty, making them ill-suited to RL's non-stationary training dynamics. To address these issues, we propose a Kalman-Guided Prompt Selection method (KGPS), which reformulates prompt selection as a dynamic state estimation problem rather than static difficulty prediction. KGPS models each prompt's latent success rate in logit space using a linear-Gaussian state-space model, with process noise coupled to the magnitude of policy updates so that uncertainty increases when the policy changes more substantially. A Kalman filter then maintains a calibrated Gaussian posterior over prompt difficulty, and prompts are selected by maximizing a posterior-expected training utility that favors intermediate-difficulty prompts while naturally revisiting uncertain ones. The resulting procedure is adaptive to policy drift and requires no additional rollouts beyond standard policy training. Extensive experiments across mathematics, planning, and geometry reasoning benchmarks, as well as multiple RL algorithms, show that KGPS consistently improves both final accuracy and rollout efficiency over strong baselines, establishing state-of-the-art performance among online prompt selection methods. For example, on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-7B, KGPS uses 83% fewer rollouts than DS while even improving the average performance by 0.12 point across six math reasoning benchmarks.
Haodong Zhu, Yangyang Ren, Yanjing Li +4
1Beihang University · 2Zhongguancun Academy · 3Nanyang Technological university +1
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, its effectiveness is substantially hindered by the prevalence of ineffective training data: many sampled prompts yield response groups that are either entirely correct or entirely incorrect, resulting in zero-variance rewards and limited learning signals. Recent state-of-the-art methods address this issue through extensive LLM rollouts to filter ineffective samples, but at the cost of considerable computational overhead. Alternative approaches, including predictive sampling and trajectory replay, aim to improve data efficiency but often remain insufficient and may introduce additional issues such as systematic bias or suboptimal constraints. To address these limitations, we propose Group Prioritized Off-Policy Optimization (POPO), a simple yet effective framework that fully exploits effective training batches without additional rollout overhead. POPO comprises two key components: prioritized group replay and decoupled off-policy optimization. The former replaces ineffective on-policy groups with effective off-policy groups via a recency-based replay mechanism that jointly considers sample quality and the degree of off-policiness. To further mitigate the off-policy gap, POPO employs decoupled importance sampling to correct off-policy bias while maintaining stable policy updates under consistent trust-region constraints. Empirical evaluations across diverse reasoning tasks, including mathematics, planning, and visual geometry, demonstrate that POPO substantially accelerates RL finetuning and achieves strong reasoning performance with significantly fewer rollouts.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) improves the reasoning capabilities of large language models, but prompt groups with identical rollout rewards consume generation budget without effective learning signals. Pre-rollout prompt selection can reduce this waste by screening prompts before rollout generation. However, existing pre-rollout methods struggle to balance exploitation and exploration: repeatedly exploiting historically informative prompts can narrow training coverage, whereas broader exploration can lower the fraction of informative prompts. To address these limitations, we introduce LEEPS, a Latent-Guided Explore--Exploit Prompt Sampler that adaptively balances the reuse of previously observed informative prompts with continued exploration of uncertain ones. LEEPS partitions candidates into exploit and explore portfolios and adaptively allocates rollout budget according to their recent non-trivial ratios. It further uses representation-space neighbors and historical rollout outcomes to prioritize uncertain prompts likely to yield non-zero reward variance, thereby making exploration more targeted without additional rollouts. Across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks, LEEPS achieves the highest average score at both model scales, with relative gains of 2.6% and 3.7% over the strongest baseline for Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B and 7B, respectively, and generally improves faster during the training process. It also achieves the highest average score across the three evaluated OOD general-reasoning benchmarks at both model scales and adds only about 2 seconds of online sampling overhead per training step. Code is available at https://github.com/ShuangLiangX/LEEPS.