Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a prominent paradigm for training reasoning models, but its computational cost makes efficient data selection increasingly important. Since training examples contribute unequally to learning, selecting a small, informative subset can offer a more efficient alternative to using the entire data pool. The training-free selection method estimates prompt value with hidden states from complete greedy rollouts. However, in our datasets, 26--32% of these rollouts fail to terminate within the generation budget. We introduce LIFT, a training-free data selector that identifies impactful prompts using only partial reasoning rollouts. At its core, LIFT uses Partial Rollout Context Lift (PRCL), a score inspired by pointwise V-information that accumulates token-level log-likelihood ratios between a question-conditioned context and a null context with the question removed. This enables prompt scoring from a short rollout prefix rather than a complete trajectory. Across Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-1.5B, prefixes retaining at least 90% and 95% of the full-rollout PRCL score, respectively, require only 26% and 4.7% of the tokens generated by full rollouts. Compared with SHIFT, LIFT reduces selection cost by 3.7--9.1× while achieving competitive downstream RLVR performance, with the highest six-benchmark average in three of six settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Tokens generated to score each dataset and model by LIFT(ours), SHIFT-ES, and SHIFT.
Figure 2: Overview of LIFR. Given an input prompt, the LLM generates a greedy partial rollout, and the PRCL score is calculated from the entropy with and without the question. Then the prompts are ranked by it.
Training dataset
Evaluation benchmarks
Dataset
Budget
Method
Math500
AIME24
AMC
Gaokao
Miner.
Olymp.
Avg.
# Sel. Tok.
Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B
Base model
33.5
10.8
29.4
18.0
6.2
21.3
19.9
–
MATH 350 train
2% (7)
Random
64.0 ±1.2
10.9 ±1.8
47.4 ±2.3
51.9 ±1.1
17.3 ±1.1
28.8 ±0.6
36.7 ±0.6
-
SHIFT
63.9 ±2.6
8.8 ±4.2
48.8 ±2.4
53.3 ±0.7
19.0 ±0.9
28.9 ±0.7
37.1 ±0.9
0.49M
SHIFT-ES
65.7 ±0.9
6.9 ±2.1
42.3 ±1.7
55.4 ±1.6
20.3 ±0.9
28.2 ±0.7
36.5 ±0.6
0.24M
Table 1: Accuracy (%) on math reasoning benchmarks. The left three columns identify the training dataset, budget, and selection method; the remaining columns are evaluation benchmarks, their average, and the number of tokens generated for selection (# Sel. Tok.).
Figure 3: Held-out accuracy during training for Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B under 4% training setting, evaluated every 10 steps.
Scoring model
Dataset
2%
4%
Qwen2.5-Math
MATH-500
2 / 7
5 / 14
LIMR
13 / 28
30 / 56
R1-Distill
LIMR
3 / 28
5 / 56
Table 2: Prompts common to SHIFT and SHIFT-ES selections.
Figure 4: Prompt influence by position along greedy rollouts, shown as mean per-token st in 1% bins of each rollout’s own length, with every rollout weighted equally, on LIMR (top) and the MATH-500 training set (bottom).
Target Share α
Model / Dataset
.85
.90
.95
.99
Qwen / MATH-500
K^
160
260
418
752
∩7
6
7
7
7
∩14
10
12
12
12
Qwen / LIMR
K^
208
340
520
952
∩28
13
18
21
26
Table 3: Target share versus selected set. K^ : the prefix length in tokens at which the whole dataset has accumulated a share α of its PRCL. ∩B : prompts shared by the top- B set at K^ and the top- B set of the full rollout, at the 2% and 4% budgets.
Figure 5: Random subset recovery of the whole dataset’s distribution, at three subset sizes. Each panel plots the share of LIMR rollouts that have collected their target share α of their own PRCL by a given position. The line is the whole 1,389-prompt dataset, and the band spans ten independent random draws.
2% (28)
4% (56)
Model
Method
pˉ
p=0
p≤.25
pˉ
p=0
p≤.25
Qwen
Random
.324
4
14
.275
12
31
SHIFT
.174
5
24
.206
8
42
PRCL
.114
9
23
.142
16
45
R1
Random
.442
7
13
.472
15
23
SHIFT
.163
18
22
.081
46
50
Table 4: Solve rate of the selected LIMR subsets, each scored by the model that selects and trains on it: subset mean pˉ and the number of prompts with p=0 and with p≤0.25 . p is estimated from 16 sampled rollouts per prompt at temperature 0.7 for both models.
Qwen2.5-Math
R1-Distill
α
med.
range
med.
range
0.80
128
112–208
96
64–144
0.90
336
224–496
176
96–448
0.95
528
416–736
288
128–832
Table 5: Estimated prefix length K^ in tokens at three target shares, on greedy LIMR rollouts: the median and the full minimum to maximum range over 300 random 10% subsets.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Training dataset
Evaluation benchmarks
Dataset
Budget
Method
Math500
AIME24
AMC
Gaokao
Miner.
Olymp.
Avg.
Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B
Base model
40.6
10.0
37.5
17.5
7.4
23.9
22.8
MATH 350 train
2% (7)
Random
65.2 ±2.7
10.4 ±5.5
49.1 ±5.8
53.1 ±1.8
16.5 ±1.2
29.8 ±1.3
37.4 ±1.8
SHIFT
64.7 ±2.1
6.7 ±7.2
46.9 ±6.9
55.2 ±2.6
17.9 ±1.3
28.7 ±1.5
36.7 ±1.0
SHIFT-ES
67.7 ±1.4
5.8 ±1.7
45.6 ±5.5
57.2 ±0.9
19.5 ±1.2
27.9 ±0.9
37.3 ±0.7
Appendix
Table 6: Greedy pass@1 (%) for the checkpoints of Table 1 : one sample per problem at temperature 0 and top- p1 , with a 2,688 token cap for Qwen2.5-Math and 12,288 for DeepSeek-R1-Distill. Rows, methods and training seeds match Table 1 exactly; the selection cost column is omitted because it does not depend on the decoding rule used at evaluation. Bold marks the best method within each budget block.
Table 7: Prompt templates and null contexts for the two models. Benchmark problems are substituted into the same template as the model’s own training prompt.
Table 8: Two prompts selected by LIFT, one per model, both near the top of their selection by PRCLK^ and of almost the same length. Only the first is difficult for the model that selected it.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) can yield large reasoning gains from very few training instances, yet its strong sensitivity to which instances are used makes data selection a central bottleneck. Most existing selection pipelines rely on training-time optimization signals and/or require access to verifiable rewards or ground-truth answers over large candidate pools, which is costly and often infeasible in specialized domains. We study RLVR data selection in a setting where selection must be performed before any RL training and without labels or reward evaluation on the full pool. We propose SHIFT, a one-shot, training-free selector based solely on inference-time hidden-state dynamics. For each candidate instance, SHIFT runs a single deterministic reasoning rollout and computes a reasoning-induced representation shift (RIRS) as the start-to-end hidden-state delta. SHIFT uses the RIRS magnitude as a lightweight proxy for instance utility and enforces coverage via a quality-weighted farthest-first CoreSet procedure in an RIRS-augmented feature space, producing compact subsets that scale to large unlabeled pools. Across mathematical reasoning and medical QA benchmarks under ultra-low budgets, SHIFT consistently outperforms training-free diversity and difficulty/uncertainty baselines, improving both in-domain accuracy and transfer to harder evaluation settings. Ablations show that RIRS-based coverage and quality-weighting contribute complementary gains, and analyses indicate that RIRS is not explained by simple input/output length statistics. Code is available at github.com/JianghaoWu/SHIFT.
Jianghao Wu, Jianfei Cai, Weiqiang Wang +3
Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has significantly advanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, methods such as GRPO and DAPO suffer from substantial computational cost, since they rely on sampling many rollouts for each prompt. Moreover, in RLVR the relative advantage is often sparse: many samples become nearly all-correct or all-incorrect, yielding low within-group reward variance and thus weak learning signals. In this paper, we introduce arrol (Accelerating RLVR via online Rollout Pruning), an online rollout pruning method that prunes rollouts during generation while explicitly steering the surviving ones more correctness-balanced to enhance learning signals. Specifically, arrol trains a lightweight quality head on-the-fly to predict the success probability of partial rollouts and uses it to make early pruning decisions. The learned quality head can further weigh candidates to improve inference accuracy during test-time scaling. To improve efficiency, we present a system design that prunes rollouts inside the inference engine and re-batches the remaining ones for log-probability computation and policy updates. Across GRPO and DAPO on Qwen-3 and LLaMA-3.2 models (1B-8B), arrol improves average accuracy by +2.30 to +2.99 while achieving up to 1.7x training speedup, and yielding up to +8.33 additional gains in average accuracy in test-time scaling. The code is available at https://github.com/Hsu1023/ARRoL.
Haobo Xu, Sirui Chen, Ruizhong Qiu +5
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign · Amazon
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.