Organizations: State Key Laboratory of Human-Machine Hybrid Augmented Intelligence, and Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Xi’an Jiaotong University · School of Software Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University · ELLIS Institute Finland and Tampere University
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is often limited by insufficient exploration: difficult problems can yield uniformly incorrect rollout groups and therefore little learning signal. We show that such failures need not reflect missing capability. Instead, finite sampling often concentrates on a problem-specific dominant reasoning strategy while leaving alternative strategies already supported by the model unexplored. Moreover, the accessibility of these strategies evolves during RL: some are internalized into autonomous behavior, while others become difficult to elicit before being absorbed. Motivated by these observations, we introduce Problem--Strategy Rollout Allocation (PSRA), which treats unguided and strategy-conditioned prompts as competing exploration arms and uses Bayesian sequential allocation to direct a fixed rollout budget toward arms most likely to yield informative, non-saturated groups. A preservation objective keeps useful strategy-conditioned routes accessible while successful guided behaviors are transferred to the unguided policy. Across Qwen2.5 models from 1.5B to 7B and two RL training corpora, PSRA consistently improves reasoning performance, reduces dead saturation, strengthens out-of-distribution transfer, and maintains larger gains under increased inference budgets.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Diagnosing strategy-level exploration in the base policy. (a) Representation-space clustering reveals a compact set of reasoning strategies. (b) Autonomous rollouts are strongly concentrated. (c) Strategy conditioning reliably redirects generation toward distinct reasoning regions. (d) Switching to the best alternative strategy improves rescue rate over continued dominant-strategy or unguided sampling. (e) Pre-generation states predict reasoning directions missed by finite rollouts. (f) A small set of certified strategies covers most of the predicted exploration gaps. (g) During RL, strategy accessibility exhibits both internalization and displacement.
Figure 2: Overview of PSRA Structure. PSRA allocates rollout budget over unguided and strategy-conditioned arms, then transfers successful guided behaviors while preserving strategy accessibility.
Model
In-Distribution Performance
Out-of-Distribution Performance
AIME 24/25
AMC
MATH-500
Minerva
OmniMath
Avg@8
StrategyQA
GPQA
MMLU-Pro
Avg@8
Qwen2.5-7B/3B/1.5B-Instruct on DAPO-Math-17K
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
10.2/6.9
51.8
74.4
35.5
24.6
33.9
63.0
27.3
23.8
38.0
+Vanilla GRPO
10.8/6.9
53.3
75.2
36.7
25.1
34.6
63.0
27.0
22.1
37.4
LUFFY
12.2/6.6
54.2
75.1
36.3
25.3
35.0
63.4
29.6
25.4
39.5
BREAD
12.6/7.7
54.2
74.4
35.6
24.6
34.9
63.0
30.0
24.2
39.1
Table 1: Main results across model scales, training dataset, and evaluation distributions.
Figure 3: Strategy-level effects of PSRA. (a) PSRA successfully reduces strategy concentration. (b) Its unguided policy shifts probability mass from the base-dominant strategy toward alternative strategies. (c) This produces higher rescue rates on initially failed problems across rollout budgets. (d) PSRA maintains a growing advantage over vanilla GRPO at larger inference budgets.
Figure 4: Training dynamics on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct. Under the same rollout budget, PSRA achieves faster and more stable reward improvement, maintains higher policy entropy, and reduces dead-saturated groups. The dashed curve denotes the best strategy arm, illustrating the remaining strategy-conditioned performance frontier.
Figure 5: Strategy preservation ablation.
Number of strategies
Bayes allocation budget
Variant
#4
#3
#2
#1
Rand
B0
B5
B15
B20
IDP Avg.
36.3±.4
36.1±.3
34.6±.6
35.3±.5
35.6±.5
35.9±.7
36.3±.7
36.9±.5
37.2±.6
ODP Avg.
40.3±.3
40.3±.4
38.0±.8
38.1±.6
38.2±.6
38.0±.5
38.8±.5
40.3±.9
40.7±.6
Table 2: Ablation of strategy-set size and Bayesian rollout allocation. B denotes reasoning budget.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
7B / DeepScaleR
7B / DAPO
3B / DAPO
1.5B / DAPO
Backbone
Qwen2.5-7B
Qwen2.5-7B
Qwen2.5-3B
Qwen2.5-1.5B
Training data
DeepScaleR-40K
DAPO-Math-17K
DAPO-Math-17K
DAPO-Math-17K
Training split
7B pass@8 mixed
7B pass@8 mixed
3B pass@8 mixed
1.5B pass@8 mixed
GPUs
4× GH200
4× GH200
4× GH200
4× GH200
Prompts / rank / step
32
8
8
8
Global prompts / step
128
32
32
32
Appendix
Table 3: Training configurations across model scales and training corpora. All PSRA-specific hyperparameters and per-prompt rollout budgets are shared across settings.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is bottlenecked by rollout generation, yet many sampled prompts produce saturated groups (all responses correct or all incorrect) whose zero reward variance yields no policy-gradient signal. Existing remedies either oversample a larger candidate pool and discard saturated prompts (dynamic sampling), paying heavy extra rollouts, or predict prompt difficulty before sampling, which is fragile under a shifting policy. We observe that a group's effectiveness is usually decided early, within the first few of its rollouts, so spending a full group on an already-decided prompt is wasteful. We cast per-step rollout collection as a budget-constrained sequential allocation (optimal stopping) problem and introduce SARA (Sequential Adaptive Rollout Allocation). SARA maintains a Beta posterior over each prompt's success rate, evaluates a closed-form predictor of group effectiveness, and applies a two-threshold, SPRT-style rule that commits effective groups, abandons saturated ones after a short probe, and reallocates the freed budget to fresh prompts, without any extra prediction rollouts. We prove abandonment reliability, expected rollout savings, fixed-budget yield dominance, and a link between effective-group yield and the GRPO gradient norm. On mathematical reasoning and planning with 1.5B/3B models on a single GPU, SARA matches DPS (both below the DS oracle) while using 22% fewer rollouts than DS; composing SARA with DPS yields the best accuracy, slightly above DS, at 67% fewer rollouts (near-uniform cost).
Pixel Nomand, Elena Voss, Marcus Hale +1
University of Wisconsin–Madison · University of Washington
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a scalable paradigm for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models. However, its effectiveness is fundamentally limited by exploration: the policy can only improve on trajectories it has already sampled. While increasing the number of rollouts alleviates this issue, such brute-force scaling is computationally expensive, and existing approaches that modify the optimization objective provide limited control over what is explored. In this work, we propose NudgeRL, a framework for structured and diversity-driven exploration in RLVR. Our approach introduces Strategy Nudging, which conditions each rollout on lightweight, strategy-level contexts to induce diverse reasoning trajectories without relying on expensive oracle supervision. To effectively learn from such structured exploration, we further propose a unified objective, which decomposes the reward signal into inter- and intra-context components and incorporates a distillation objective to transfer discovered behaviors back to the base policy. Empirically, NudgeRL outperforms standard GRPO with up to 8 times larger rollout budgets, while outperforming oracle-guided RL baseline on average across five challenging math benchmarks. These results demonstrate that structured, context-driven exploration can serve as an efficient and scalable alternative to both brute-force rollout scaling and feasibility-oriented methods based on privileged information. Our code is available at https://github.com/tally0818/NudgeRL.
Modern language models undergo reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) on top of already-trained checkpoints. A key promise of RLVR is the discovery of new reasoning strategies. In principle, a model can sample novel ideas absent from its prior training data. In practice, however, augmenting RLVR with strong novelty incentives has seen limited success and can degrade model quality. Because verifiable rewards supervise only a narrow slice of the model's knowledge and behavior, such degradations are difficult to recover from. Instead, we decouple exploration from optimization in a framework we call Exploration-Distillation (ExpDis). We train one or more explorer policies with a novelty bonus in the reward, filter their trajectories for correctness and quality, and distill them into a separate student policy. The student policy is then trained without a novelty bonus. We repeat the above procedure for several rounds, alternating between exploration and optimization. This decoupling allows us to aggressively scale exploration without degrading the student policy. Across seven mathematical reasoning benchmarks and two model families, ExpDis outperforms DAPO at the same wall-clock budget. Moreover, we observe improved pass@k scaling, indicating that ExpDis produces models that generate more diverse correct solutions.
Saif Punjwani, Micah Goldblum
Department of Computer Science, Columbia University · Department of Electrical Engineering, Columbia University