Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned via outcome-based Reinforcement Learning (RL) frequently exhibit a critical failure mode: they achieve high performance on in-distribution benchmarks while demonstrating brittle reasoning capabilities on out-of-distribution (OOD) tasks. We term this phenomenon Reward-Induced Manifold Collapse. We establish a theoretical framework bridging Structural Causal Models (SCM) and the Information Bottleneck (IB) principle to explain this paradox. We define reasoning as a high-complexity causal process and shortcut learning as the exploitation of low-complexity spurious correlations. Under the implicit inductive bias of Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD), models optimized for outcome rewards are biased toward shortcut solutions whenever the training distribution allows for a ``Markovian Screening'' of the true causal mechanism. We derive a new generalization bound based on Semantic Coverage Measure (η) rather than sample size, showing why data scaling on homogeneous distributions may fail to correct reasoning flaws. We also show that Process Reward Models (PRMs) function as Topological Filters, enforcing step-wise mutual information constraints that render the low-complexity shortcut manifold inadmissible. These results provide a mathematical grounding for the role of process supervision beyond simple credit assignment.
Process reward models (PRMs) enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by providing fine-grained feedback, yet training PRMs typically requires expensive stepwise annotations. Outcome-supervised PRMs offer a scalable alternative by learning from final-answer correctness alone, but this introduces a fundamental credit assignment challenge, i.e., attributing outcomes to responsible reasoning steps. Existing approaches rely on either uniform or causal assignment, both of which fail to anchor credit in step correctness and thus hinder process error identification. In this work, we propose Outcome-Supervised Process Reward Modeling via Learnable Credit Assignment (LCA), an outcome-supervised PRM framework that jointly learns credit assignment and reward modeling under the principle of Weakest Link Assignment: a reasoning chain is as strong as its weakest link. To address mutual dependence between credit assignment and reward modeling, we formalize outcome-supervised PRM as a Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) problem and introduce Softmax-Weighted-Sum (SWS) pooling, an MIL pooling technique tailored for strong dependence and redundancy among reasoning states. We prove Bayes consistency of our algorithm under mild assumptions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LCA consistently outperforms state-of-the-art outcome-supervised PRMs across multiple tasks and backbones. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LCA.
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.
Ömer Faruk Akgül, Rajgopal Kannan, Willie Neiswanger +1
A standard recipe for distilling the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) is to sample chains of thought from the model, keep those that reach the correct final answer, and fine-tune on the survivors. When sampling fails, a common fix shows the generator the gold answer and asks it to write a chain that reaches that answer. We show that this second step degrades the training data in a way that correctness filtering cannot catch. We run a controlled experiment that fixes the generator, the problem set, and the correctness filter, and varies only whether the chain is generated under answer-conditioning, the gold answer shown with a request to reach it. Training a strong instruction-tuned reasoning model on its own answer-conditioned chains sharply lowers its verifiable-reasoning accuracy. The loss grows with difficulty, reaching as much as about 27 points on the hardest competition problems. The mechanism is legible in the chains themselves, which rationalize backward from the shown answer instead of deriving it, with the early final-answer statement as the measurable symptom. The harm is a property of the data rather than the generator, read off unlabeled generations before any fine-tuning, ordering the penalty across eight thinking models from four families, and transferring across teacher families. A prompt ablation localizes it to the rationalize-toward instruction rather than the answer's bare visibility. The practical takeaway is to generate answer-blind, because no correctness filter can see this damage in the data.