Does Scaling Reinforcement Learning Really Require More Training?

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has become the predominant recipe for eliciting test-time scaling in explicit Chain-of-Thought reasoners. Yet this scaling path remains computationally costly, since every intermediate step must be decoded as a language token. Latent reasoning instead carries intermediate computation as continuous vectors and already matches or surpasses explicit CoT at far shorter horizons. Despite this promise, latent reasoners remain largely imitation-bound, while explicit CoT has already moved past imitation via outcome-reward RL. Latent trajectories lack a tractable per-step likelihood and an adaptive stopping interface under fixed thinking budgets, so outcome rewards cannot elicit latent test-time scaling. We introduce Surrogate Latent Policy Optimization (SLPO) to bring outcome-reward RL to autoregressive latent reasoners: an empirical surrogate policy density over latent transitions for trajectory-level credit assignment, and a correctness-supervised stopping head that outcome-reward optimization refines into a variable-horizon policy. Across continuous and soft thinking settings, SLPO improves Pass@$k$ under parallel sampling and allocates longer latent computation to harder instances with higher deterministic accuracy.

Reinforcement learning has become the standard for improving reasoning in large language models, yet evidence increasingly suggests that RL does not teach new strategies; it redistributes probability mass over solutions the base model already contains. In this work, we ask: if RL merely steers the model toward paths it already knows, is the RL optimization loop itself necessary? Through token-level analysis across multiple model families and RL algorithms, we find that RL's beneficial footprint is a sparse, predictable correction concentrated at high-entropy decision points where the model is uncertain which branch to take. Only 1--3% of token positions are affected, the promoted token always lies within the base model's top-5 alternatives, and targeted corrections at those few positions causally recover a large fraction of RL's accuracy gain, while random corrections fail. The base model's own entropy identifies these positions without any RL-trained model, and the entire correction is low-dimensional, representable in a tiny fraction of model parameters. These findings reframe reasoning improvement as sparse policy selection, not capability acquisition. We translate this insight into ReasonMaxxer, a minimal RL-free method that applies contrastive loss only at entropy-gated decision points, using a few hundred base-model rollouts and no online generation. Across three model families, six scales, and six math reasoning benchmarks, ReasonMaxxer matches or exceeds full RL performance while requiring only tens of problems and minutes of single-GPU training, a reduction in training cost of roughly three orders of magnitude.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has been applied to improve large language model (LLM) reasoning, yet the systematic study of how training scales with task difficulty has been hampered by the lack of controlled, scalable environments. Observed LLM shortcomings in long-horizon reasoning have raised the prospect that they are fundamental to the autoregressive transformer architecture. To address this, we introduce ScaleLogic, a synthetic logical reasoning framework that offers independent control over two axes of difficulty: the depth of the required proof planning (i.e., the horizon) and the expressiveness of the underlying logic. Our proposed framework supports a wide range of logics: from simple implication-only logic ("if-then") towards more expressive first-order reasoning with conjunction ("and"), disjunction ("or"), negation ("not"), and universal quantification ("for all"). Using this framework, we show that the RL training compute $T$ follows a power law with respect to reasoning depth $D$ ($T \propto D^γ$, $R^{2} > 0.99$), and that the scaling exponent $γ$ increases monotonically with logical expressiveness, from $1.04$ to $2.60$. On downstream mathematics and general reasoning benchmarks, more expressive training settings yield both larger performance gains (up to $+10.66$ points) and more compute-efficient transfer compared to less expressive settings, demonstrating that what a model is trained on, not just how much it is trained, shapes downstream transfer. We further show that the power-law relationship holds across multiple RL methods, and curriculum-based training substantially improves scaling efficiency. More broadly, our results demonstrate that LLM shortcomings in long-horizon reasoning are not fundamental to the underlying architecture, and can be addressed by improved training methodology and data.