Unsupervised reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a promising paradigm for enabling self-improvement in large language models (LLMs). However, existing unsupervised RL-based methods often lack the capacity to adapt to the model's evolving reasoning capabilities during training. Therefore, these methods can misdirect policy optimization in the absence of ground-truth supervision. To address this issue, we introduce FREIA, a novel RL-based algorithm built on two key innovations: (1) Free Energy-Driven Reward (FER) adapts rewards to balance consensus and exploration based on the Free Energy Principle. (2) Adaptive Advantage Shaping (AAS) adaptively adjusts learning signals based on the statistical characteristics of sampled rewards. Empirical evaluations on nine datasets across three reasoning tasks showcase that FREIA outperforms other unsupervised RL-based baselines. Notably, in mathematical reasoning tasks, FREIA surpasses other methods by an average of 0.5 to 3.5 points in Pass@1 using the DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B model.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An analysis of reward signals for a math problem, where the correct answer is “13”. Note that p indicates the frequency of sampled answers.
Figure 2: An analysis of standard advantage shaping. (Top: Weak Consensus) The high-reward answer appears infrequently. Standard advantage assigns excessive values to these rare answers. (Bottom: Strong Consensus) The majority answer dominates the population. Standard advantage excessively penalizes the occasional deviations.
Figure 3: The overall framework of FREIA, including Free Energy-Driven Reward (FER) and Adaptive Advantage Shaping (AAS).
Figure 4: Visualization of FER. Specifically, the left part depicts the Exploration term when CG is low, while the right part shows the Consensus term under high CG .
Dataset
Base
GRPO (Supervised)
TTRL
Entropy
Intuitor
FREIA
Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B-Instruct
MATH500
74.2
75.2 ±0.7
75.0 ±0.4
74.6 ±0.8
74.4 ±0.8
75.4 ±0.2
AIME24
10.0
13.3 ±1.9
13.3 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
13.3 ±0.0
AIME25
3.3
16.7 ±0.0
16.7 ±0.0
13.3 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
16.7 ±0.0
AMC23
47.5
52.5 ±1.4
52.5 ±0.0
47.5 ±0.0
47.5 ±0.0
52.5 ±0.0
Minerva
28.7
31.3 ±0.9
30.9 ±0.5
29.4 ±0.8
28.7 ±0.9
32.0 ±0.4
Table 1: Experimental results on multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks. The results are reported as mean and standard deviation across 3 random seeds ( i.e. , Mean ±Std ). The best results are highlighted in bold.
Figure 5: Experimental results on SQL generation and multi-modal reasoning.
Figure 6: Comparison of total training wall-clock time (minutes) using various methods.
Figure 7: Training dynamics of FREIA. (a) Policy entropy using DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B; (b) Group confidence score ( CG ); (c) Exploration component of the reward; (d) Consensus component of the reward.
Figure 8: Ablation study and hyperparameter sensitivity analysis of FREIA. (a) Average Pass@1 of the full FREIA compared to its ablated variants. (b) Average Pass@1 under varying values of the hyperparameter α .
Table 3: A case study on False Consensus. FREIA detects the high uncertainty and inverts the reward signal, prioritizing the correct minority over the incorrect majority.
Figure 9: The evolution of the reward skewness throughout training.
Method
ACS ( ↓ )
Self-BLEU ( ↓ )
GPT-Diversity ( ↑ )
GRPO
0.88
0.79
1.05
TTRL
0.76
0.68
1.23
FREIA
0.62
0.51
1.56
Appendix
Table 4: Diversity metrics on the MATH500 dataset using Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B-Instruct. ↓ indicates lower is better; ↑ indicates higher is better.
Method
Geometry3K
Spider
BIRD
Avg.
Base
25.7
70.2
43.6
46.5
GRPO
35.6 ±1.1
73.8 ±0.5
55.7 ±0.9
55.0 ±0.8
TTRL
35.3 ±0.8
74.0 ±0.4
56.0 ±0.2
55.1 ±0.4
Intuitor
34.8 ±0.9
72.8 ±0.6
54.5 ±0.8
54.0 ±0.8
Entropy
34.4 ±0.7
72.5 ±0.5
54.0 ±0.7
53.6 ±0.6
FREIA
36.1 ±0.5
74.4 ±0.2
56.4 ±0.3
55.6 ±0.3
Appendix
Table 5: Generalization performance on SQL generation (Spider, BIRD) and multi-modal reasoning (Geometry3K). The results are reported as mean and standard deviation across 3 random seeds (format: Mean±Std ).
Model
Method
MATH500
AIME24
AIME25
AMC23
Minerva
Olympiad
Avg.
Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B
w/o Consensus
74.4
10.0
6.7
47.5
29.4
38.9
34.5
w/o Exploration
74.8
13.3
10.0
50.0
30.1
39.5
36.3
w/o AAS
75.2
13.3
13.3
50.0
31.3
40.5
37.3
FREIA
75.4
13.3
16.7
52.5
32.0
41.2
38.5
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
w/o Consensus
63.2
3.3
3.3
35.0
24.6
29.5
26.5
w/o Exploration
64.2
6.7
6.7
37.5
25.4
30.7
28.5
Appendix
Table 6: Detailed Ablation Study (RQ3). We compare FREIA against removing key components: w/o Consensus, w/o Exploration, and w/o AAS.
Model
Coefficient
MATH500
AIME24
AIME25
AMC23
Minerva
Olympiad
Avg.
Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B
α=0.5
74.8
13.3
16.7
50.0
31.3
40.1
37.7
α=1.0
75.2
13.3
16.7
52.5
31.6
40.8
38.4
α=2.0
75.4
13.3
16.7
52.5
32.0
41.2
38.5
α=3.0
75.0
13.3
16.7
50.0
32.0
40.9
38.0
α=4.0
74.8
13.3
13.3
50.0
31.3
40.2
37.2
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
α=0.5
64.6
6.7
6.7
37.5
25.4
30.6
28.6
Appendix
Table 7: Hyperparameter Sensitivity Analysis (RQ4). Impact of the coefficient α on model performance across diverse benchmarks.
Setting
Mixing Strategy
MATH500
AIME24
AIME25
AMC23
Minerva
Olympiad
Avg.
Fixed Mixing
λ=0.2
74.6
10.0
13.3
48.5
30.5
39.8
36.1
Fixed Mixing
λ=0.5
74.8
13.3
13.3
50.0
30.8
40.2
37.1
Fixed Mixing
λ=0.8
75.0
13.3
16.7
50.0
31.3
40.7
37.8
FREIA
Dynamic CG
75.4
13.3
16.7
52.5
32.0
41.2
38.5
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation study on the mixing coefficient λ using Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B-Instruct. Baselines with fixed λ represent a static trade-off between Consensus ( λ ) and Surprisal ( 1−λ ). FREIA uses Group Confidence ( CG ) to adaptively modulate this trade-off per instance.
Setting
MATH500
AIME24
AIME25
AMC23
Minerva
Olympiad
Avg.
Growth Rate
FREIA ( G=4 )
74.6
13.3
13.3
47.5
30.5
40.1
36.6
-
FREIA ( G=6 )
75.2
13.3
16.7
50.0
31.6
41.1
38.0
+1.4%
FREIA ( G=8 )
75.4
13.3
16.7
52.5
32.0
41.2
38.5
+0.5%
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation study on Group Size G using Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B-Instruct. We report the Pass@1 score across all datasets. Growth Rate indicates the performance gain relative to the previous group size setting.
Reinforcement learning studies how agents learn sequential decisions from rewards and interaction, balancing exploration, performance, safety, and adaptation.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is an essential paradigm that enhances the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, existing methods typically rely on static policy optimization schemes that misalign with the model's evolving reasoning capabilities. To address this issue, we propose Adaptive Power-Mean Policy Optimization (APMPO), which comprises two main innovations: Power-Mean Policy Optimization (PMPO) and Feedback-Adaptive Clipping (FAC). Specifically, PMPO introduces a generalized power-mean objective. This enables the model to adaptively transition from the signal-amplifying behavior of the arithmetic mean to the consistency-enforcing behavior of the geometric mean. FAC adaptively adjusts clipping bounds based on real-time reward statistics to overcome the limitations of static mechanisms. Capitalizing on these innovations, APMPO improves learning dynamics and reasoning performance. Extensive experiments on nine datasets across three reasoning tasks showcase the superiority of APMPO over state-of-the-art RLVR-based baselines. For instance, APMPO boosts the average Pass@1 score on mathematical reasoning benchmarks by 3.0 points compared to GRPO when using Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct.
Yiming Huang, Zhenbo Shi, Shuzheng Gao +3
Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen · The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Peng Cheng Laboratory
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.
Reinforcement learning has become a central paradigm for advancing reasoning in large language models, yet most existing methods still depend on stronger teacher models or heavily curated difficult datasets, limiting scalable capability improvement. In this paper, we introduce DenoiseRL, a reinforcement learning framework that substitutes external supervision with recovery-oriented optimization over failures from weak models. Instead of relying on stronger supervision or carefully engineered data, DenoiseRL learns directly from incorrect reasoning traces by converting them into opportunities for improvement, making training more scalable and less dependent on external resources. This yields a richer and more diverse learning signal, improving exploration efficiency from imperfect model behavior. As a result, DenoiseRL improves reasoning performance and overall training efficiency while reducing the need for expensive data curation or stronger teacher models. Empirically, DenoiseRL consistently outperforms strong on-policy RL baselines across competitive mathematical and general reasoning benchmarks and promotes stronger self-corrective behavior as training difficulty increases, highlighting an effective and scalable alternative pathway for improving reasoning in large language models.
Caijun Xu, Changyi Xiao, Zhongyuan Peng +1
1Fudan University · 2Shanghai Innovation Institute