SERA: Scale-Equalized Rollout Allocation for Maximum Likelihood Reinforcement Learning

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).

LLM post-training often relies on reinforcement learning methods that sample multiple rollouts per prompt, yet most existing approaches use a fixed rollout budget for every prompt, despite large differences in the training signal different prompts provide. In this paper, we study adaptive rollout allocation under a fixed global budget and formulate the problem as online resource allocation with prompt-level diminishing returns. Our method, CERO, maintains a Beta posterior over each prompt's success probability and uses the posterior expected Bernoulli variance as a Bayesian estimate of the value of additional rollouts. We use this estimate to construct a concave, saturating utility over cumulative allocations, yielding an objective in which decisions across prompts and epochs are coupled by the global budget. Since the resulting objective is temporally nonseparable, we derive a Fenchel-dual reformulation and update both prompt-level and budget-level dual variables via projected online gradient descent. Under fixed prompt utilities, we prove an $O(\sqrt{K})$ regret bound against the offline allocation benchmark. Experiments on mathematical-reasoning problems show that CERO consistently outperforms GRPO across multiple open-weight LLMs and benchmarks, demonstrating that adaptive rollout budgeting can improve sample efficiency.

Correctness-based Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) trains language models from binary feedback on sampled outputs, but the objective optimized in expectation and the stochastic update geometry induced by finite rollout groups are often conflated. This paper develops RL2ML, a family of finite-rollout surrogate objectives with a closed-form, exactly unbiased gradient estimator. The family continuously connects standard reinforcement learning, maximum-likelihood-like training, and beyond-maximum-likelihood objectives while preserving estimator-objective alignment under a fixed rollout budget. We introduce the group-level update scale to characterize how a rollout group is reweighted after its empirical success count is observed, revealing a subcritical-supercritical update-scale transition that is hidden by population-level objective notation alone. Building on this distinction, calibrated metric-gain analysis and exact variance decomposition show that the best choice of surrogate objective is determined neither by proximity to maximum likelihood nor by the population-level weight alone. Instead, it depends jointly on the evaluation metric, local sensitivity, and estimator variance. The remaining degree of freedom in the surrogate objective family can therefore be formulated as a one-dimensional optimization problem rather than treated as an unconstrained hyperparameter.