DenoiseRL: Bootstrapping Reasoning Models to Recover from Noisy Prefixes

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.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as an effective paradigm for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models. However, RLVR training is often hindered by sparse binary rewards and weak credit assignment, resulting in ambiguous optimization signals and underutilization of the useful information embedded in failed trajectories. To address this challenge, we propose Correction-Oriented Policy Optimization (CIPO), a simple and effective extension to RLVR that converts on-policy failed trajectories into correction-oriented supervision, without relying on any external signals. By jointly optimizing correction samples derived from the model's own failed attempts together with the standard RLVR objective, CIPO improves learning effectiveness while explicitly enhancing the model's ability to correct its own errors. Extensive experiments across 11 benchmarks spanning mathematical reasoning and code generation demonstrate that CIPO consistently and significantly outperforms strong baselines in both reasoning and correction performance. Moreover, CIPO yields stronger pass@K gains, indicating that it improves the model's intrinsic reasoning capacity rather than merely redistributing probability mass over existing correct answers.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a promising paradigm for training reasoning-oriented models by leveraging rule-based reward signals. However, RL training typically tends to improve single-sample success rates (i.e., Pass@1) while offering limited exploration of diverse reasoning trajectories, which is crucial for multi-sample performance (i.e., Pass@k). Our preliminary analysis reveals that this limitation stems from a fundamental squeezing effect, whereby probability mass is excessively concentrated on a narrow subset of high-reward trajectories, restricting genuine exploration and constraining attainable performance under RL training. To address this issue, in this work, we propose Steering Probability Squeezing (SPS), a training paradigm that interleaves conventional RL with inverse reinforcement learning (IRL). SPS treats on-policy rollouts as demonstrations and employs IRL to explicitly reshape the induced trajectory distribution, thereby enhancing exploration without introducing external supervision. Experiments on five commonly used reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that SPS can enable better exploration and improve Pass@k. Beyond algorithmic contributions, we provide an analysis of RL learning dynamics and identify an empirical upper bound on Pass@k, shedding light on intrinsic exploration limits in RL-based reasoning models. Our findings suggest that alternating between RL and IRL offers an effective pathway toward extending the exploration capacity of reasoning-oriented large language models.