Abstention as an Action Can Kill Both the Reward Gradient and the KL Anchor: Collapse Law and Repair for Error-Penalized Reinforcement Learning
Authors: Xujun Che, Yuchen Yuan, Weida Zhao, Chenyang Yu
Abstract
Error-penalized scoring rules (+1 for a correct answer, −λ for a wrong one, 0 for abstaining) are increasingly prescribed against hallucination: a rational agent facing such a rule answers exactly when its correctness probability exceeds Chow's threshold t∗=λ/(1+λ). We prove that a KL-anchored gradient learner can do the opposite. When abstention is a discrete action, the reward gradient and the anchor's restoring force are throttled by the same gate-saturation factor and die together: under explicit conditions (among them, blanket answering loses score in expectation and prompts share a bounded readout) the model drifts toward refusing everything, its mean training reward rising to zero like 1/t in training time t, so the curve reads as improvement while coverage collapses. The advantage estimator compounds the failure: in its sparse-answer regime, group normalization silently replaces every designed penalty with an effective penalty of one, moving the learned threshold from t∗ to 1/2. The repair is structural: train a mandatory confidence report with a strictly proper score plus a correctness reward, and abstain only at deployment by thresholding the report. The always-emitted report has no gate to saturate, so no shared factor can kill its reward gradient and its anchor together, and its calibrated optimum is attracting. Simulations confirm every prediction, and experiments on language models at two scales confirm the mechanism live: the rule silences questions the models demonstrably still solve within ten optimizer steps, an ablation isolates the cause, and report-level training raises coverage, accuracy, and calibration together.
Training language models via reinforcement learning often relies on imperfect proxy rewards, since ground truth rewards that precisely define the intended behavior are rarely available. Standard metrics for assessing the quality of proxy rewards, such as ranking accuracy, treat incorrect rewards as strictly harmful. In this work, however, we highlight that not all deviations from the ground truth are equal. By theoretically analyzing which outputs attract probability during policy gradient optimization, we categorize reward errors according to their effect on the increase in ground truth reward. The analysis establishes that reward errors, though conventionally viewed as harmful, can also be benign or even beneficial by preventing the policy from stalling around outputs with mediocre ground truth reward. We then present two practical implications of our theory. First, for reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), we develop reward model evaluation metrics that account for the harmfulness of reward errors. Compared to standard ranking accuracy, these metrics typically correlate better with the performance of a language model after RLHF, yet gaps remain in robustly evaluating reward models. Second, we provide insights for reward design in settings with verifiable rewards. A key theme underlying our results is that the effectiveness of a proxy reward function depends heavily on its interaction with the initial policy and learning algorithm.
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) or Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) are two key steps in the post-training of modern Language Models (LMs). A common problem is reward hacking, where the policy may exploit inaccuracies of the reward and learn an unintended behavior. Most previous works address this by limiting the policy update with a Kullback-Leibler (KL) penalty towards a reference model. We propose a different framing: Train the LM in a way that biases policy updates towards regions in which the reward is more accurate. First, we derive a theoretical connection between the accuracy of a reward model and the flatness of an optimum at convergence. Gradient regularization (GR) can then be used to bias training to flatter regions and thereby maintain reward model accuracy. We confirm these results by showing that the gradient norm and reward accuracy are empirically correlated in RLHF. We then empirically show that Reference Resets of the KL penalty find flatter regions with a higher reward accuracy. We further improve on this by proposing to use explicit GR with an efficient finite-difference estimate. Empirically, GR performs better than a KL penalty across a diverse set of RL experiments with LMs. GR achieves a higher GPT-judged win-rate in RLHF, avoids overly focusing on the format in rule-based math rewards, and prevents hacking the judge in LLM-as-a-Judge math tasks.
Johannes Ackermann, Michael Noukhovitch, Takashi Ishida +1
Reinforcement fine-tuning improves the reasoning ability of large language models, but it can also encourage them to answer unanswerable queries by guessing or hallucinating missing information. Existing abstention methods either train models to produce generic refusals or encourage follow-up clarifications without verifying whether those clarifications identify the key missing information. We study queries that are clear in meaning but cannot be reliably resolved from the given information, and argue that a reliable model should not only abstain, but also explain what is missing. We propose a clarification-aware RLVR reward that, while rewarding correct answers on answerable queries, jointly optimizes explicit abstention and semantically aligned post-refusal clarification on unanswerable queries. Using this reward, we train Abstain-R1, a 3B model that improves abstention and clarification on unanswerable queries while preserving strong performance on answerable ones. Experiments on Abstain-Test, Abstain-QA, and SelfAware show that Abstain-R1 substantially improves over its base model and achieves unanswerable-query behavior competitive with larger systems including DeepSeek-R1, suggesting that calibrated abstention and clarification can be learned through verifiable rewards rather than emerging from scale alone.