When and Why Does Unsupervised RL Succeed in Mathematical Reasoning? A Manifold Envelopment Perspective
Organizations: Kyoto University
Abstract
Although outcome-based reinforcement learning (RL) significantly advances the mathematical reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), its reliance on computationally expensive ground-truth annotations imposes a severe scalability bottleneck. Unsupervised RL guided by intrinsic rewards offers a scalable alternative, yet it suffers from opaque training dynamics and catastrophic instability, such as policy collapse and reward hacking. In this paper, we first design and evaluate a suite of intrinsic rewards that explicitly enforce concise and certain generation. Second, to discover the boundaries of this approach, we test base models across a spectrum of intrinsic reasoning capabilities, revealing how a model's foundational logical prior dictates its success or failure. Finally, to demystify why certain configurations stabilize while others collapse, we introduce a novel geometric diagnostic lens, showing that successful cases are enveloped by manifolds. Ultimately, our work goes beyond merely demonstrating that enforcing concise and certain responses successfully boosts mathematical reasoning; we reveal when this unsupervised approach breaks down and geometrically diagnose why.
Figures & tables
| Method | Uncertainty | Length |
|---|---|---|
| Ent | Penalty | Strong penalty |
| AvgEnt | Penalty | None |
| LP ∗ | None | Strong penalty |
| CH2 ∗ | Penalty | Weak penalty |
| CP ∗ | Penalty | Encourage (Confusing) |
| Model | Method | MATH-500 | Olympiad | Minerva | AIME 24 | AMC 23 | AIME 26 | AVG | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | ||
| Qwen3-1.7B | Base | 70.2 | 81.4 | 84.9 | 30.1 | 41.6 | 46.9 | 30.6 | 42.0 | 46.0 | 6.0 | 14.2 | 19.1 | 47.2 | 61.4 | 68.0 | 7.1 | 15.5 | 20.0 | 42.7 | 54.0 | 58.5 |
| S-RL | 78.8 | 89.5 | 91.8 | 39.5 | 52.0 | 56.0 | 35.4 | 49.2 | 53.9 | 17.9 | 31.0 | 37.8 | 56.6 | 76.0 | 82.1 | 12.7 | 26.0 | 31.1 | 51.0 | 63.3 | 67.0 | |
| Ent | 79.8 | 90.4 | 92.4 | 41.4 | 54.9 | 58.8 | 34.4 | 48.3 | 52.9 | 22.5 | 42.6 | 49.3 | 61.3 | 81.8 | 88.1 | 14.0 | 27.9 | 31.6 | 52.2 | 65.1 | 68.7 | |
| AvgEnt | 78.2 | 89.7 | 91.9 | 39.8 | 52.8 | 56.7 | 36.1 | 50.0 | 54.5 | 20.2 | 38.8 | 49.1 | 58.3 | 80.3 | 87.9 | 16.0 | 34.7 | 42.0 | 51.2 | 64.3 | 68.1 | |
| LP | 80.0 | 90.4 | 92.4 | 42.6 | 55.3 | 59.1 | 34.4 | 47.9 | 52.4 | 20.0 | 34.2 | 39.3 | 57.8 | 79.7 | 86.8 | 14.4 | 28.0 | 33.6 | 52.7 | 65.0 | 68.5 | |
| Entropy Cluster | Semantic | Representative Tokens (Top Frequency) | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low (Execution) | Arithmetic | Qwen : 1 , 2 , 3 , 0 , + , - DeepSeek : + , 2 , 4 , - , 3 , 1 Llama : 4 , 2 , = , + , 1 , 3 | Operators and concrete numerical digits. |
| Syntax | Qwen : by , ’t , to , be , ( , ) DeepSeek : ’t , ) , be , by , of , to Llama : of , { , }{ , \ , frac , $ | Structural formatting and LaTeX syntax. | |
| Medium (Logic) | Formulation | Qwen : Let , The , this , it DeepSeek : Let , this , here , each Llama : need , let , given , find , solve | Establishing variables and conditions. |
| Transitions | Qwen : Wait , But , ? , Therefore , So DeepSeek : ? , but , should , So , Wait Llama : However , To , must , also , Now | Step-by-step reasoning deductions. | |
| High (Thinking) | Exploration | Qwen : perhaps , maybe , suppose , Hmm DeepSeek : maybe , perhaps , wait , Hmm , think Llama : First , start , break , analyze | Macro-planning and expressing uncertainty. |
| Verification | Qwen : confirm , verify , actually , If , assume DeepSeek : consider , double , Because , Or Llama : denote , determine , considering | Halting to verify or initiating branch paths. |
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Model | Method | MATH-500 | Olympiad | Minerva | AIME 24 | AMC 23 | AIME 26 | AVG | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | P@1 | P@5 | P@10 | ||
| Qwen3-8B (8K) | Base | 85.1 | 91.9 | 93.7 | 46.9 | 56.7 | 60.8 | 42.2 | 51.4 | 54.4 | 38.3 | 53.2 | 59.0 | 70.5 | 85.9 | 90.4 | 28.1 | 42.0 | 46.9 | 58.5 | 67.5 | 70.8 |
| S-RL | 90.9 | 94.8 | 95.7 | 56.4 | 64.9 | 68.0 | 47.7 | 56.1 | 58.7 | 50.2 | 66.5 | 71.8 | 86.1 | 93.1 | 94.6 | 43.8 | 58.3 | 63.6 | 66.4 | 73.6 | 76.0 | |
| Ent | 91.7 | 95.7 | 96.5 | 58.3 | 67.7 | 70.8 | 47.7 | 55.9 | 58.1 | 53.5 | 76.5 | 82.1 | 86.4 | 96.4 | 97.5 | 49.4 | 66.4 | 70.4 | 67.7 | 75.6 | 77.8 | |
| AvgEnt | 89.9 | 94.4 | 95.5 | 54.3 | 62.3 | 65.3 | 46.8 | 56.0 | 58.9 | 44.4 | 61.7 | 69.6 | 82.8 | 93.4 | 94.7 | 44.4 | 60.9 | 66.7 | 64.8 | 72.3 | 74.8 | |
| LP | 91.9 | 95.8 | 96.6 | 58.4 | 67.3 | 70.2 | 47.5 | 56.2 | 59.4 | 53.1 | 75.3 | 82.8 | 87.8 | 94.5 | 96.2 | 50.0 | 65.4 | 70.0 | 67.8 | 75.4 | 77.7 | |
| Hyperparameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Optimization | |
| Actor Learning Rate | |
| Learning Rate Warmup Steps | 10 |
| Weight Decay | 0.1 |
| Mini-batch Size | 24 |
| Prompt Batch Size | 8 |