RL Excursions during Pre-Training: Re-examining Policy Optimization for LLM training

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become central to improving large language models (LLMs) on complex reasoning tasks, yet RL post-training is largely studied in isolation from the pretraining that precedes it. As a result, two basic questions remain open: (1) how do pretraining choices (model size, data) shape the returns to RL compute, and (2) what does RL actually do to the model? These questions are difficult to study in the standard LLM setting: pretraining corpora are vast and uncontrolled, making it hard to attribute behaviors to pretraining versus RL, and systematic compute sweeps across both stages are prohibitively expensive. To address these challenges, we use chess as a controlled testbed for studying reasoning across the full pretraining-to-post-training pipeline. We follow the standard LLM training pipeline by pretraining language models from 5M to 1B parameters on human chess games, supervised fine-tuning on synthetic reasoning traces, and running RL on chess puzzles with verifiable rewards. Using this framework, we find that the post-RL performance at given RL compute level is well-predicted from the pretraining loss, and slope of the RL reward curves improves approximately linearly with the pretraining tokens. Beyond scaling, we find that RL does not simply sharpen the SFT policy: on easy puzzles it amplifies correct moves the SFT policy already preferred, while on hard puzzles it surfaces correct moves that were nearly absent under SFT. We further test whether our findings transfer beyond chess by training a 1B language model on math-domain text, where the same predictive pattern emerges: longer-pretrained checkpoints reach higher post-RL performance and improve faster under RL. In sum, we provide a quantitative account of the pretraining-to-RL interface and a controlled testbed for studying the science of reasoning across the full pretraining-to-post-training pipeline.

Reinforcement learning (RL) is used to improve the reasoning abilities of LLMs, while training data span heterogeneous tasks. However, most RL post-training pipelines rely on fixed or manually designed task mixtures, even though task usefulness changes as training progresses. Online curriculum methods often define learnability by update magnitude, ignoring whether the update translates into reward gains, which can misallocate rollout budget toward tasks with large but ineffective updates. We propose PAC, a Progress-Augmented Advantage Curriculum for multi-task RL of LLMs that combines two task-level signals: advantage-derived learnability, which measures the magnitude of the policy update a task can induce, and recent reward gains, which show whether those updates have improved task performance. A Bayesian Thompson Sampling controller uses these signals to allocate rollouts across tasks during GRPO training. We evaluate PAC under two settings: a multi-level reasoning setting and a multi-domain reasoning setting. PAC improves sample efficiency and final performance: it reaches comparable validation scores with fewer rollout steps and achieves higher final averages than random sampling and advantage-based curriculum baselines in both settings. These results show that jointly tracking advantage signals and actual reward gains yields an effective online curriculum for LLM post-training.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become central to LLM post-training, yet the methods that dominate current pipelines, PPO and GRPO, represent only a narrow slice of what RL offers. Understanding why these methods prevail, and what alternatives exist, requires a principled examination of the design decisions that underlie any RL algorithm. This survey organizes that examination around three stages of algorithm construction. We begin with MDP creation: how the reward function, state space, action space, termination condition, and discount factor are, or could be, defined for LLM training. We then turn to exploration, covering temperature sampling, entropy regularization, intrinsic motivation, tree search, and curriculum learning. Finally, we address learning along four classical RL dimensions: model-free versus model-based, value-based versus policy-based versus actor-critic, on-policy versus off-policy, and credit assignment, including both Monte Carlo methods, which rely on full return estimates, and bootstrapping methods, which update estimates using other learned predictions. Mapping the LLM literature onto this taxonomy reveals a strikingly non-uniform distribution of research effort. Critic-free policy gradients and Monte Carlo credit assignment are densely populated, while value-based methods, off-policy actor-critic training, and bootstrapping-based credit assignment remain largely unexplored despite well-established counterparts in classical RL. These gaps represent concrete opportunities for transferring proven RL techniques to LLM training. By making these gaps explicit alongside the methods that have proven effective, this survey offers researchers in both RL and LLMs a shared framework for understanding current practice and identifying promising directions for future work.