RL2ML: Finite-Rollout Surrogate Objectives from Reinforcement Learning to Maximum Likelihood

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a standard approach for improving reasoning in language models, yet models trained with RLVR often suffer from diversity collapse: while single-sample accuracy improves, multi-sample coverage degrades, sometimes falling below the base model. We provide a structural account of this phenomenon grounded in the properties of binary rewards. Binary rewards create a fundamental degeneracy for policy gradient methods: the set of distributions maximizing expected reward is infinite, with no distinguished element. KL-control resolves this degeneracy by selecting, in the limit $β\to 0$, the filtered model $p_*:=a(\cdot\mid\mathcal{Y}_1)$ -- the base model conditioned on validity -- which is the unique fully valid distribution closest to the base model in KL divergence. This selection operates through a nontrivial asymmetry: the tilted distribution $p_{[β]}\propto a(y)\,e^{v(y)/β}$ converges to $p_*$ in forward KL as $β\to 0$, yet $p_*$ cannot serve as a direct optimization target because $\mathrm{KL}(q\,\|\,p_*)$ is infinite for any full-support policy $q$. We develop explicit formulas relating the hyperparameter $β$ to the more interpretable target validity rate $μ$. Under model misspecification -- the typical practical regime -- the pressure to decrease $β$ drives the optimizer toward highly concentrated distributions over a small number of valid outputs, collapsing toward ever fewer as $β$ decreases, rather than toward the filtered model. We illustrate this mechanism on a toy autoregressive experiment and discuss how alternative divergences that target $p_*$ directly -- as pursued empirically by \citet{kruszewski_whatever_2026} -- avoid this failure mode by rewarding coverage of $p_*$'s support rather than concentration on high-validity outputs.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) enhances the reasoning of large language models (LLMs), but standard RLVR often depends on human-annotated answers or carefully curated reward specifications. In machine-checkable domains, label-free alternatives such as majority voting or LLM-as-a-judge remove annotation cost but can introduce false positives that destabilize training. We introduce JURY-RL, a label-free RLVR framework that decouples answer proposal from reward disposal: votes from model rollouts propose a candidate answer, and a formal verifier determines whether that candidate can receive positive reward. Concretely, only rollouts matching the plurality-voted answer are rewarded when that answer is successfully verified in Lean. When verification is inconclusive, we invoke ResZero (Residual-Zero), a fallback reward that discards the unverified plurality proposal and redistributes a zero-mean, variance-preserving signal over the residual answers. This design maintains a stable optimization gradient without reinforcing unverifiable consensus. Across three backbone models trained on mathematical data, JURY-RL consistently outperforms other label-free baselines on mathematical reasoning benchmarks and transfers competitively to code generation and general benchmarks. It attains pass@1 performance comparable to supervised ground-truth training, with superior generalization demonstrated by higher pass@k and response diversity.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a standard paradigm for post-training language models, but in practice, verifiers are rarely perfect. Recent theoretical work predicts that verifier noise affects the rate of learning but not its final outcome, implying that sufficient compute should close any gap induced by imperfect supervision. We test this prediction empirically by post-training Qwen2.5 (0.5B, 1.5B) with GRPO on GSM8K while injecting controlled false-positive and false-negative noise into the binary correctness signal, and varying rollouts per prompt as a compute axis. In practice, the gap in validation accuracy persists under substantial compute scaling, with returns to compute that are sharply diminishing. We further find a structural asymmetry where false negatives monotonically degrade performance more quickly than false positives. These findings suggest verifier quality and training compute are not interchangeable, and that reducing false negatives is a more effective lever than scaling compute alone.