Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) typically uses small rollout groups per prompt, where repeated sampling from the same policy can yield highly similar trajectories, reducing within-group reward variation and weakening group-relative advantage signals. Existing remedies such as higher sampling temperature, entropy bonuses, asymmetric clipping, and larger rollout budgets broaden sampling or modify policy updates but leave rollout conditioning unchanged. In this paper, we propose EDEN (Embedding-space Directional Exploration via anchored Noise), which intervenes at the rollout source through anchored input perturbations. EDEN explores beyond the policy's own rollouts. Within the same rollout budget, it replaces a small fraction of standard rollouts in each group with rollouts that the same policy generates from the prompt plus a single appended, perturbed embedding position, rather than from the prompt alone. Gaussian noise drives variation, while a shared anchor provides a common conditioning direction within each prompt group. Selected perturbed rollouts contribute to GRPO updates with downweighted advantages, and the model architecture, discrete decoding, and test-time inference remain unchanged. Across model scales and mathematical reasoning benchmarks, EDEN outperforms GRPO and the exploration controls evaluated in the same pipeline, with the largest gains in sampled solution coverage. Analyses show that more prompt groups provide non-zero group-relative learning signals and that noise and anchoring play complementary roles. Intervening at the rollout source is thus an effective lever for exploration in RLVR.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: EDEN explores beyond the policy’s rollouts. (a) Anchored conditioning yields rollouts from a shifted proposal. (b) After training, EDEN achieves broader coverage of correct trajectories under clean-prompt sampling. (c) Independent Gaussian noise perturbs a shared anchor in embedding space.
Figure 2: Overview of EDEN. EDEN augments RLVR with a small fraction of noise-perturbed rollouts to broaden trajectory-level exploration without increasing the total rollout budget.
Metric
Method
MATH
GSM8K
AMC
Olympiad
Gaokao
Minerva
Avg.
Pass@1
GRPO
76.60
86.35
53.01
40.50
64.94
31.99
58.90
+ Higher Temp.
77.00
85.29
56.63
39.02
65.71
30.15
58.97
+ Clip Higher
77.40
84.69
56.63
41.25
64.16
31.62
59.29
EDEN
77.40
86.28
63.86
41.84
67.01
31.62
61.34
Pass@8
GRPO
86.60
94.92
69.88
55.34
77.14
41.54
70.90
+ Higher Temp.
88.20
91.89
71.08
53.26
77.40
42.28
70.69
Table 1: Performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks with Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B. We report Pass@1 and Pass@8. Bold indicates the best result per column.
Metric
Method
MATH
GSM8K
AMC
Olympiad
Gaokao
Minerva
Avg.
Pass@1
GRPO
82.00
88.93
71.08
44.81
66.75
35.66
64.87
EDEN
81.80
90.30
68.67
47.48
68.57
36.03
65.48
Pass@8
GRPO
88.80
96.21
83.13
58.31
77.14
42.65
74.37
EDEN
93.00
97.04
83.13
64.39
80.52
50.00
78.01
Table 2: Performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks with Qwen2.5-Math-7B. We report Pass@1 and Pass@8. Bold indicates the best result per column.
Table 5
Method
Construction
Pass@1
Pass@8
GRPO
—
45.67
66.36
EDEN
curated bank ( K=8 ), per prompt
47.95
69.01
– w/o noise
curated bank ( ρ=0 ), no perturbation
45.42
66.51
– w/o anchor
norm-matched random noise
43.39
65.45
– random anchor
random vocab anchor, per rollout
43.86
65.81
– random fixed anchor †
one random vocab anchor, fixed
46.37
67.78
Table 4: Qwen2.5-0.5B performance under varying perturbations and anchor construction, averaged over MATH500 and GSM8K (16 rollouts/prompt). † Three anchor draws.
Figure 7
Figure 7: Training dynamics of EDEN vs. GRPO on Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B.
Figure 8: Effect of advantage filtering. Left: training gradient norm. Right: Avg@4 performance.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Metric
Method
MATH500
GSM8K
Avg.
Pass@1
GRPO
31.40±1.11
59.59±0.40
45.50±0.76
EDEN
34.80±1.00
61.13±0.42
47.96±0.71
Pass@8
GRPO
57.80±1.25
74.32±0.56
66.06±0.90
EDEN
59.40±0.80
78.60±0.27
69.00±0.53
Appendix
Table 7: Training-seed robustness on Qwen2.5-0.5B. Results are reported as mean ± sample standard deviation over three independent training runs. Pass@1 uses greedy decoding with T=0 and top- p=1.0 ; Pass@8 uses T=0.6 and top- p=0.95 .
Figure 11: Average performance (Avg@4) comparison on Qwen2.5-0.5B under T=1 , top- p=0.7 . Left: numerical results. Right: visualization of Avg@4 performance.
Method
MATH
GSM8K
AMC
AIME24
AIME25
Olympiad
Gaokao
Minerva
Avg
GRPO
78.00
85.58
56.33
16.67
6.67
40.47
64.03
31.53
47.41
EDEN
77.30
84.95
57.83
16.67
11.67
41.88
66.75
32.81
48.73
Appendix
Table 8: Average performance (Avg@4) comparison on Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B models under T=1 , top- p=0.7 .
Method
MATH
GSM8K
AMC
AIME24
AIME25
Olympiad
Gaokao
Minerva
Avg
GRPO
81.65
88.70
70.18
29.17
15.83
46.66
67.99
36.12
54.54
EDEN
83.25
90.09
65.06
37.50
12.50
45.14
68.77
36.67
54.87
Appendix
Table 9: Average performance (Avg@4) comparison on Qwen2.5-Math-7B under T=1 , top- p=0.7 .
Figure 12: Training instability without temperature scheduling on Qwen2.5-0.5B. Left: gradient norm (log scale) rapidly increases and eventually diverges, leading to numerical instability (NaNs). Right: validation accuracy initially improves but subsequently collapses to zero as training becomes unstable. These results demonstrate that temperature scheduling is essential for stabilizing noise-perturbed rollouts in EDEN.
Figure 13: Effect of temperature schedule duration in EDEN on Qwen2.5-Math-7B. We compare cosine schedules with durations of 0–200 and 0–400 steps. Both configurations yield comparable performance and consistently outperform the GRPO baseline across most benchmarks. Left: Pass@1 with greedy decoding. Right: Pass@8 with T=0.6 and top- p=0.95 .
Metric
Method
MATH
GSM8K
AMC
AIME’24
AIME’25
Olympiad
Gaokao
Minerva
Avg.
Pass@1
GRPO ( T=1 )
76.60
86.35
53.01
13.33
20.00
40.50
64.94
31.99
48.34
GRPO ( T=1.2 )
77.00
85.29
56.63
13.33
10.00
39.02
65.71
30.15
47.14
GRPO ( T=1.4 )
76.60
84.91
59.04
13.33
16.67
41.10
66.49
31.99
48.77
EDEN ( T=1 )
77.40
86.28
63.86
13.33
13.33
41.84
67.01
31.62
49.33
EDEN ( T=1.4 )
78.60
85.75
57.83
20.00
13.33
39.17
64.94
33.09
49.09
Pass@8
GRPO ( T=1 )
86.60
94.92
69.88
33.33
16.67
55.34
77.14
41.54
59.43
Appendix
Table 10: Effect of temperature on mathematical reasoning performance (Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B). We compare GRPO and EDEN under different temperature settings. We report Pass@1 (greedy) and Pass@8 (sampling). Bold indicates the best result within each block.
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.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) improves the reasoning capabilities of large language models, but prompt groups with identical rollout rewards consume generation budget without effective learning signals. Pre-rollout prompt selection can reduce this waste by screening prompts before rollout generation. However, existing pre-rollout methods struggle to balance exploitation and exploration: repeatedly exploiting historically informative prompts can narrow training coverage, whereas broader exploration can lower the fraction of informative prompts. To address these limitations, we introduce LEEPS, a Latent-Guided Explore--Exploit Prompt Sampler that adaptively balances the reuse of previously observed informative prompts with continued exploration of uncertain ones. LEEPS partitions candidates into exploit and explore portfolios and adaptively allocates rollout budget according to their recent non-trivial ratios. It further uses representation-space neighbors and historical rollout outcomes to prioritize uncertain prompts likely to yield non-zero reward variance, thereby making exploration more targeted without additional rollouts. Across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks, LEEPS achieves the highest average score at both model scales, with relative gains of 2.6% and 3.7% over the strongest baseline for Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B and 7B, respectively, and generally improves faster during the training process. It also achieves the highest average score across the three evaluated OOD general-reasoning benchmarks at both model scales and adds only about 2 seconds of online sampling overhead per training step. Code is available at https://github.com/ShuangLiangX/LEEPS.
Exploration has been a focus of reinforcement learning research for a long time. Recently, there has been growing evidence that it is also an important ingredient in LLM reinforcement learning recipes that can significantly impact downstream performance. Many existing methods control exploration in the action-space, for example, using temperature scaling. However, these methods cannot reorder tokens but only influence the variance in the output distribution. This limits exploration and can lead to divergence or stalled training. Here, we investigate parameter-space exploration, where rollouts are generated by sampling different policies from a posterior that may each explore different rollouts. Sampling less or more diverse policies is then a complementary control lever over exploration. We introduce a family of methods called Perturbed Parameter Policy Optimization (3PO) which use different sampling strategies and different rollout grouping for reward estimation. Experiments on OLMo-3-1025-7B and Qwen2.5-Math-7B across mathematical reasoning and code generation tasks show that these approaches consistently improve average downstream performance over standard GRPO at a near-identical FLOPs cost. Moreover, using multiple parameter samples consistently produces fewer zero-advantage groups and malformed or incorrect rollouts during training than GRPO and action-space baselines. Overall, our work presents evidence that parameter-space exploration can improve reinforcement learning for LLMs.
Vatsal Venkatkrishna, Nico Daheim, Iryna Gurevych
INSAIT, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Bulgaria · Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab (UKP Lab), Department of Computer Science, Technical University of Darmstadt and National Research Center for Applied Cybersecurity ATHENE, Germany