LLMZero: Discovering Adaptive Training Strategies for RL Post-Training via LLM Agents

The standard LLM training pipeline applies reinforcement learning (RL) only after pre-training and supervised fine-tuning (SFT). We question this status quo by training a LLM from scratch and applying RL, SFT, and SFT followed by RL directly to intermediate pre-training checkpoints. We find that RL is effective very early, and often matches the full SFT$\to$RL pipeline early as well. Through experiments on harder problems, we find that targeted pre-training data composition is a strong lever for RL effectiveness, even more so than model scale. Beyond reasoning accuracy, applying RL directly to base checkpoints expands the model's distribution; the sharpening effect reported in recent work arises only when RL follows SFT. The general capabilities of the model remain essentially unchanged by RL, while they degrade following SFT. Finally, we merge RL and SFT objectives by parallel averaging, which outperforms across all other training methods discussed, across metrics, while preserving general capabilities. Together, these results suggest that LLM training might benefit from an expanded use of RL.

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.