RAGEN-2: Reasoning Collapse in Agentic RL
Organizations: Northwestern University · UIUC · Independent · Imperial College London ·
Abstract
RL training of multi-turn LLM agents is inherently unstable, and reasoning quality directly determines task performance. Entropy is widely used to track reasoning stability. However, entropy only measures diversity within the same input, and cannot tell whether reasoning actually responds to different inputs. In RAGEN-2, we find that even with stable entropy, models can rely on fixed templates that look diverse but are input-agnostic. We call this template collapse, a failure mode invisible to entropy and all existing metrics. To diagnose this failure, we decompose reasoning quality into within-input diversity (Entropy) and cross-input distinguishability (Mutual Information, MI), and introduce a family of mutual information proxies for online diagnosis. Across diverse tasks, mutual information correlates with final performance much more strongly than entropy, making it a more reliable proxy for reasoning quality. We further explain template collapse with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) mechanism. Low reward variance weakens task gradients, letting regularization terms dominate and erase cross-input reasoning differences. To address this, we propose SNR-Aware Filtering to select high-signal prompts per iteration using reward variance as a lightweight proxy. Across planning, math reasoning, web navigation, and code execution, the method consistently improves both input dependence and task performance.
Figures & tables
| Type | Proxy | Formula | Notes |
| Discrete | Retrieval-Acc | Chance level under template collapse | |
| bi lilin k | Recall@ | ||
| Continuous (raw) | MI-Est | Per-token; approaches 0 under collapse | |
| MI-Seq-Est | Per-sequence; no length normalization | ||
| Continuous (z-score) | MI-ZScore | Normalized by current-batch marginal std | |
| MI-ZScore-EMA |
| Component | Source | Level | Ctrl. | Mitigation |
| Meaningful reward differences across same-prompt trajectories | Prompt | No | SNR-Aware Filtering | |
| Sampling and environment stochasticity | Prompt | No | Filter high-noise prompts | |
| Uniform contraction per chain, independent of input (KL, entropy) | Chain | Yes | Tune , |
| Task | Stochastic | Multi-turn | State | Reward |
| Sokoban | ✗ | ✓ | Grid | Dense |
| FrozenLake | ✓ | ✓ | Grid | Binary |
| MetaMathQA | ✗ | ✓ | Text | Dense |
| Countdown | ✗ | ✗ | Text | Binary |
| SearchQA | ✗ | ✓ | Text | Dense |
| WebShop | ✗ | ✓ | Text | Dense |
| Experiment Variants | Sokoban | FrozenLake | MetaMathQA | Countdown | Average |
| Baseline | |||||
| PPO ( Schulman et al., 2017b ) , | |||||
| Qwen2.5-3B ( Qwen Team, 2024 ) | 12.9 (+16.0) | 67.0 (+10.9) | 92.6 (+0.6) | 97.9 (+0.0) | 67.6 (+6.9) |
| Algorithm | |||||
| DAPO ( Yu et al., 2025 ) | 16.2 (+5.1) | 66.8 (+2.1) | 90.8 (+2.8) | 95.7 (+1.6) | 67.4 (+2.9) |
| GRPO ( Shao et al., 2024 ) | 12.1 (+9.0) | 70.9 (-3.0) | 91.2 (+1.2) | 95.7 (+2.2) | 67.5 (+3.7) |
| (prompts) (traj/prompt) | Task Perf. (%) | Step Time (s) | VRAM (GB) | ||||||
| NF | F | NF | F | % | NF | F | |||
| 23.6 | – | – | 89.8 | – | – | 201.80 | – | – | |
| 18.8 | 27.3 | 91.8 | 64.9 | 201.39 | 201.83 | ||||
| 24.2 | 27.4 | 89.8 | 52.6 | 202.11 | 201.67 | ||||
| 15.6 | 23.6 | 89.2 | 65.9 | 201.54 | 201.90 | ||||
| Quartile | RV Range | Task Perf (%) | MI Proxy | Entropy |
| Q1 (highest RV) | [4.4–5.6] | 21.1 | 0.95 | 2.02 |
| Q2 | [1.5–4.2] | 19.5 | 0.93 | 1.53 |
| Q3 | [0.0–0.2] | 10.7 | 0.81 | 1.41 |
| Q4 (lowest RV) | [0.0–0.1] | 11.0 | 0.73 | 1.87 |
| Method | Prompts Used | Traj/Update | Task Perf (%) | MI Proxy |
| No filter | 8/8 | 128 | 12.9 | 0.83 |
| Prompt-level RV ( ) | 3.2/8 | 50.6 | 23.6 | 1.80 |
| Trajectory-level | 8/8 | 64 | 16.8 | 0.20 |
| Setting | Filter | P | G | RV Mean | RV Std | RV Var | RV Min | RV Max | Std/Mean |
| Sokoban, 14B | 8 | 8 | 2.24 | 2.88 | 8.32 | 0.10 | 6.00 | 1.29 | |
| Sokoban, 3B | 32 | 4 | 2.49 | 2.89 | 8.35 | 0.05 | 6.52 | 1.16 | |
| FrozenLake, 3B (GRPO) | 32 | 8 | 0.54 | 0.18 | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.76 | 0.33 |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| EXPERIMENT SETUP | TASK PERF | MI PROXY | ENTROPY | STABLE |
| Sampling Strategies | ||||
| Top-p = 1.0 (Baseline) | 0.17 | 0.54 | 2.76 | ✗ |
| Top-p = 0.9 | 0.38 (+0.20) | 0.84 (+0.29) | 1.64 (-1.12) | ✓ |
| Top-p = 0.5 | 0.29 (+0.12) | 0.83 (+0.29) | 1.88 (-0.88) | ✓ |
| Min-p = 0.05 | 0.42 (+0.25) | 0.67 (+0.13) | 1.64 (-1.12) | ✓ |
| Min-p = 0.2 | 0.45 (+0.27) | 0.36 (-0.18) | 3.01 (+0.26) | ✓ |
LLM Agents
Large language model agents use language models to plan, use tools, and act across multi-step tasks and environments.
See all 705 papers