On the Direction of RLVR Updates for LLM Reasoning: Identification and Exploitation

Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a promising framework for enhancing the reasoning ability of large language models. However, much of the existing work is guided by heuristic intuition, leading to divergent algorithmic choices, even contradictory ones that nevertheless report empirical gains. To better understand this phenomenon, we conduct a theoretical analysis of RLVR updates. Our study reveals that differences in off-policy degree, determined by the number of gradient steps per rollout, substantially affect the distribution of importance sampling ratios and their clipping behavior, thereby altering which tokens dominate the update. Building on this insight, we characterize gradient expectation as the central quantity governing update dynamics and analyze the roles of token probability, advantage, and importance sampling ratio. Motivated by these findings, we propose Adaptive Clip Policy Optimization (ACPO), which adjusts clipping boundaries across token groups according to the empirical variance of their importance sampling ratios. Experiments on 3B and 7B models across diverse reasoning benchmarks, spanning mathematical problem solving, tabular QA, and logic puzzles, demonstrate that ACPO outperforms strong baselines such as DAPO and CISPO. These results demonstrate that principled, analysis-driven approaches yield more robust and effective RLVR methods. Code is available in: https://github.com/Control-derek/ACPO

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has significantly improved reasoning in large language models (LLMs), yet the token-level mechanisms underlying these improvements remain unclear. We present a systematic empirical study of RLVR's distributional effects organized around three main analyses: (1) token-level characterization of distributional shifts between base and RL models, (2) the impact of token-level distributional shifts on sequence-level reasoning performance through cross-sampling interventions, and (3) fine-grained mechanics of these shifts at the token level. We find that RL fine-tuning induces highly sparse and targeted changes, with only a small fraction of token distributions exhibiting meaningful divergence between the base and RL policies. We further characterize the structure and evolution of these shifts through analyses of token entropy, positional concentration, and reallocation of probability mass. To assess the functional importance of these sparse changes, we conduct cross-sampling experiments that selectively swap token choices between the base and RL models with varying intervention budgets. We show that inserting only a small fraction of RL-sampled tokens into base generations progressively recovers RL performance gains, while injecting a similarly small number of base token choices into otherwise RL-generated sequences collapses performance to base levels, isolating a small set of token-level decisions directly responsible for RLVR's performance gains. Finally, we explore divergence-weighted variants of the advantage signal as a diagnostic intervention, finding that they can yield improvements over baselines. Together, our results shed light on the distributional changes induced by RLVR and provide a fine-grained, token-level lens for understanding RLVR fine-tuning as a targeted refinement process.

Reinforcement learning has become the standard for improving reasoning in large language models, yet evidence increasingly suggests that RL does not teach new strategies; it redistributes probability mass over solutions the base model already contains. In this work, we ask: if RL merely steers the model toward paths it already knows, is the RL optimization loop itself necessary? Through token-level analysis across multiple model families and RL algorithms, we find that RL's beneficial footprint is a sparse, predictable correction concentrated at high-entropy decision points where the model is uncertain which branch to take. Only 1--3% of token positions are affected, the promoted token always lies within the base model's top-5 alternatives, and targeted corrections at those few positions causally recover a large fraction of RL's accuracy gain, while random corrections fail. The base model's own entropy identifies these positions without any RL-trained model, and the entire correction is low-dimensional, representable in a tiny fraction of model parameters. These findings reframe reasoning improvement as sparse policy selection, not capability acquisition. We translate this insight into ReasonMaxxer, a minimal RL-free method that applies contrastive loss only at entropy-gated decision points, using a few hundred base-model rollouts and no online generation. Across three model families, six scales, and six math reasoning benchmarks, ReasonMaxxer matches or exceeds full RL performance while requiring only tens of problems and minutes of single-GPU training, a reduction in training cost of roughly three orders of magnitude.