Group-relative reinforcement learning (RL) relies on reward variation among sampled responses to estimate informative relative advantages. As language models become increasingly capable, existing training data can become reward-saturated: all sampled responses to the same problem might receive equally high rewards, where the group-relative learning signals vanish and leave previously useful data obsolete. In this work, we investigate whether useful learning signals can be recovered from such saturated data. We study interventions at four levels of group-policy RL pipelines---data, rollout, reward, and advantage---and conduct extensive RL training on saturated reasoning data only. While standard GRPO on saturated data would almost always yield near-0 advantages and near-noise signals, diverse interventions successfully recycle and repurpose such data: among the proposed strategies, interventions at rollout generation are consistently most effective: nudging the policy to generate ``high-quality'', incorrect solutions introduces rollouts with poor rewards into saturated groups as negative samples, which turns out to improve GRPO by 6.4% to 9.0% across Qwen3-1.7B and 4B. Other interventions such as increasing rollout temperature or adding auxiliary rewards can also restore non-zero advantages, but yield less consistent gains. Further analyses show that effective negative rollouts require informative negative trajectories, that the method remains effective alongside unsaturated data, and that it supports iterative recycling of newly saturated examples. While increasingly stronger LLMs would render more data as saturated, our results demonstrate that don't waste your saturated data: with the right strategies they can be recycled into useful RL training signals in an increasingly data-scarce world.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of our work. (Top) Reward saturation in GRPO: When training data are easy, all G rollouts could be correct and receive the maximum reward, leading to zero advantage and thus little policy update. (Bottom) Multi-Level Interventions: We intervene at one of four stages of GRPO training: data, rollout, reward, and advantage to restore informative learning signals from reward-saturated examples. These interventions act at different stages of the training pipeline but share the same goal: restoring a usable group-relative learning signal for otherwise saturated prompts.
Settings
MATH500
GPQA
BBH
Minerva
AIME24
AIME25
IFBench
IFEval
Average
Policy: Qwen3-1.7B
Base Model
60.00
25.80
9.65
18.00
11.46
9.06
23.20
68.00
28.15
Baselines
GRPO
62.60
24.24
10.86
17.28
17.08
9.17
21.20
69.00
28.93
Mixed-CUTS
61.00
32.32
10.55
18.38
16.77
12.81
25.20
70.20
30.91
SFT
58.40
29.29
8.23
18.01
6.67
10.10
22.00
67.40
27.51
Table 1: Performance comparison across eight benchmarks using Qwen3-1.7B and Qwen3-4B. We compare the base model, standard GRPO, Mixed-CUTS, SFT, SFT → GRPO and interventions at the data, rollout, reward, and advantage levels. We report avg@32 for AIME24 and AIME25 and pass@1 for all other benchmarks. The best and second-best results within each model group are highlighted in bold and underline , respectively.
Method
MATH500
GPQA
BBH
Minerva
AIME24
AIME25
IFBench
IFEval
Average
Qwen3-1.7B
GRPO
62.60
24.24
10.86
17.28
17.08
9.17
21.20
69.00
28.93
Answer Replacement
59.20
27.78
13.10
14.71
2.50
7.29
29.20
67.80
27.70
Wrong-Answer-Cond.
64.20
29.80
10.86
17.28
17.19
9.17
23.20
70.60
30.29
Model-Generated Negative
64.80
29.80
13.01
18.38
20.31
14.38
24.00
67.60
31.53
Qwen3-4B
Table 2: Comparison of negative rollout construction strategies across eight benchmarks. Although all three strategies restore reward variation within saturated groups, model-generated negative rollouts achieve the strongest average performance across both model scales.
Figure 2: Performance of GRPO and Negative Rollout across different ratios of reward-saturated training data. Negative Rollout improves aggregate performance across all saturation ratios, with gains varying across benchmarks.
Figure 3: Self-evolving saturation-aware training, with expanding saturated pool and improving AIME25 performance.
Settings
MATH500
GPQA
BBH
Minerva
AIME24
AIME25
IFBench
IFEval
Average
GRPO
70.60
31.31
16.13
25.74
31.98
27.40
28.00
78.80
38.74
Zero Padding ( k=1 )
68.20
34.85
15.11
23.90
21.67
19.27
29.20
80.60
36.60
Zero Padding ( k=2 )
62.80
31.82
13.83
19.85
14.06
11.88
27.60
81.40
32.90
Zero Padding ( k=3 )
67.20
30.30
13.50
22.79
20.21
23.13
30.00
79.80
35.87
Zero Padding ( k=8 )
62.20
29.80
13.50
22.79
17.71
3.65
29.60
79.60
32.36
Zero Padding (random k )
66.40
30.30
13.27
22.43
17.08
18.96
27.60
80.00
34.51
Table 3: Effect of number of zero-reward padding size k on Qwen3-4B.
Settings
MATH500
GPQA
BBH
Minerva
AIME24
AIME25
IFBench
IFEval
Average
Base Model
34.00
18.18
8.96
12.50
6.25
1.15
30.80
72.00
22.98
GRPO
45.00
20.71
10.42
13.97
3.30
1.04
32.90
72.40
24.97
Mixed-CUTS
27.00
3.03
2.50
9.93
3.30
0.21
29.20
63.60
17.35
Negative Rollout
43.60
24.75
9.27
20.59
10.00
0.42
29.20
67.20
25.63
Table 4: Generalization results on LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct across eight benchmarks.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Category
Value
Group Size ( G )
8
Training Batch Size
128
PPO Mini-batch Size
32
KL Loss Type
Low-variance KL
KL Coefficient ( β )
1×10−3
Rollout Top- p
1.0
Appendix
Table 5: Key hyperparameters used.
Settings
MATH500
GPQA
BBH
Minerva
AIME24
AIME25
IFBench
IFEval
Avg.
GRPO
Seed 1
62.60
24.24
10.86
17.28
17.08
9.17
21.20
69.00
28.93
Seed 2
64.00
22.22
12.72
16.18
19.90
10.73
22.00
68.00
29.47
Seed 3
63.60
23.23
12.43
17.28
19.38
8.02
24.40
69.60
29.74
Mean ± Std.
63.40 ± 0.72
23.23 ± 1.01
12.00 ± 1.00
16.91 ± 0.64
18.79 ± 1.50
9.31 ± 1.36
22.53 ± 1.67
68.87 ± 0.81
29.38 ± 0.41
Negative Rollout
Appendix
Table 6: Robustness across three random seeds on Qwen3-1.7B. We report individual runs together with the mean and standard deviation across seeds.
Reinforcement learning studies how agents learn sequential decisions from rewards and interaction, balancing exploration, performance, safety, and adaptation.