DCRL: Decoupling and Coupling Reinforcement Learning via Policy-Reward Manifold Alignment
Authors: Henan Sun, Zehua Li, Haitao Hu, Qifan Zhang, Jianfeng Zhang, Nuo Chen, Jia Li
Organizations: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab · Tencent HY · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a key paradigm for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, existing reward systems, such as rule-based and reward-model-based, often exhibit issues such as unstable optimization and reward hacking. In this work, we revisit the general reasoning of LLMs from a geometric perspective, conceptualizing it as a coupled manifold composed of three interdependent sub-manifolds: logical deduction, evaluation, and representation. Based on this perspective, response generation in RL can be interpreted as a decoupling process from the evaluation manifold, while reward estimation corresponds to a decoupling process from the logical deduction manifold. The limitations of rule-based and reward-model RL systems can be geometrically interpreted as the mismatch of policy-reward manifolds during RL process. To address the aforementioned misalignment, we propose Decoupling and Coupling Reinforcement Learning (DCRL) framework, which incorporates two key components: (1) a syllogistic logic-based prompt evolution mechanism that dynamically refines reward rubrics to enhance the expressiveness of the reward manifold; and (2) a policy-reward re-coupling mechanism that jointly updates the reward and policy models, ensuring consistent evaluation and mitigating manifold mismatch during training. Theoretical analysis and extensive experiments across multiple reasoning domains demonstrate that DCRL consistently outperforms both rule-based and reward-model baselines. Notably, a Qwen3-4B model trained under DCRL surpasses a Qwen3-32B baseline and approaches the performance of a Qwen3-235B model, highlighting superior effectiveness and generalization in RL.
Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate transformative potential, yet their reasoning remains inconsistent and unreliable. Reinforcement learning (RL)-based fine-tuning is a key mechanism for improvement, but its effectiveness is fundamentally governed by reward design. Despite its importance, the relationship between reward modeling and core LLM challenges--such as evaluation bias, hallucination, distribution shift, and efficient learning--remains poorly understood. This work argues that reward modeling is not merely an implementation detail but a central architect of reasoning alignment, shaping what models learn, how they generalize, and whether their outputs can be trusted. We introduce Reasoning-Aligned Reinforcement Learning (RARL), a reasoning-centric taxonomic perspective that organizes diverse reward paradigms for multi-step reasoning. Within this perspective, we present a taxonomy of reward mechanisms, analyze reward hacking as a pervasive failure mode, and examine how reward signals unify challenges ranging from inference-time scaling to hallucination mitigation. We further critically evaluate existing benchmarks, highlighting vulnerabilities such as data contamination and reward misalignment, and outline directions for more robust evaluation. By integrating fragmented research threads and clarifying the interplay between reward design and fundamental reasoning capabilities, this work provides a foundational roadmap for building reasoning models that are robust, verifiable, and trustworthy.
Recent RL methods have substantially improved the reasoning abilities of LLMs. Existing reward designs mainly follow two paradigms: (1) Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) derives outcome signals from executable checks or ground-truth answers, but provides limited guidance for intermediate reasoning behaviors. (2) Rubrics-as-reward (RaR) goes beyond final-answer checking by using natural-language rubrics to assess reasoning quality and task compliance, but often requires instance-specific rubrics and substantial design effort. To address these issues, we introduce Metacognition-as-Reward (MaR), a metacognition-inspired RL framework that guides LLM reasoning through two general process dimensions: i) metacognitive knowledge, which identifies task-relevant information without hand-crafted instance-specific rubrics, and ii) metacognitive regulation, which plans and adjusts the reasoning process to provide reward guidance beyond final-answer outcomes. MaR scaffolds model rollouts into explicit metacognitive components and optimizes them with a trajectory-level reward over task knowledge coverage, regulation fidelity, and final-answer correctness. In this way, MaR extends reward feedback to reasoning trajectories while grounding the reward signals in general metacognitive dimensions. Experiments on 22 benchmarks show that MaR consistently improves model performance, achieving up to a 7.7% gain over the base model and up to an 11.0% gain over vanilla DAPO. Notably, Qwen3.5-9B + MaR narrows the gap to frontier models, surpassing GPT-OSS-120B on overall average and outperforming stronger models on several individual benchmarks. Process-level analysis further shows substantial improvements in reasoning process quality. MaR also generalizes to out-of-domain datasets, where MaR-trained models improve over their corresponding base models on average.
Modern large language models (LLMs) are expected not just to answer correctly, but to adapt their behavior to different human values and use cases. As a result, multi-reward reinforcement learning (RL) has become an increasingly important problem for LLMs, where each reward captures a different aspect of desired behavior. However, optimizing with multiple rewards suffers from a more severe alignment tax issue, where different optimization objectives can trade off or even conflict with each other, leading to unstable and inefficient post-training. In this work, we propose PRISM, a new multi-reward RL framework built upon the idea of policy-space decomposition and composition. Instead of compositing different rewards, PRISM optimizes a set of standalone positive policies and a global negative policy. This alleviates the potential conflict during multi-reward policy optimization, while enabling controllability during inference by flexible policy composition. Experiments on scientific reasoning, tool-use reasoning, and helpfulness-safety alignment show that PRISM consistently outperforms existing multi-reward RL baselines, with extra controllability for inference-time preference control.