Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) improves the reasoning capabilities of large language models, but often reduces the diversity of their reasoning behaviors. We study this phenomenon from the perspective of finite-sample learning dynamics and show that limited on-policy rollouts can progressively suppress semantically distinct but equally rewarded reasoning modes. Once a mode becomes sufficiently under-sampled, standard on-policy RLVR rarely recovers it. Motivated by this observation, we propose TAR, a Targeted Adaptive Replay framework that preserves diverse correct reasoning behaviors already present in the base policy. TAR constructs a compact memory bank of diverse base-model solutions and selectively replays them through an adaptive mechanism that activates only when stored behaviors are being suppressed during RLVR. Across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks and two Qwen2.5 model scales, TAR consistently achieves a better balance between reasoning performance and diversity preservation than existing diversity-preserving post-training methods, while substantially reducing the forgetting of correct base-model solutions. Code is available at https://github.com/wenzhilics/tar.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Negative log-likelihood distribution of ground truth external expert demonstrations and internal LLM self-generated demonstrations with Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct.
Figure 2: Toy analysis of mode imbalance and recovery under finite-sample RLVR. (a) Mode imbalance between two equally rewarded modes for different rollout-group sizes. (b) Mode coverage over the 200 updates after the first crossing of Ck,t<1 , aligned at the crossing step. Shaded regions denote interquartile ranges.
Model
GSM8K
MATH-500
AMC
College Math
Minerva
OlympiadBench
Avg.
Qwen-2.5-0.5B
Base
46.9 / 77.6
30.8 / 62.0
7.5 / 35.0
27.4 / 45.0
5.5 / 18.4
7.1 / 27.4
20.9 / 44.2
GRPO
52.7 / 75.5
36.6 / 62.0
10.0 / 40.0
30.6 / 43.3
8.8 / 22.8
9.8 / 28.9
24.8 / 45.4
On-Policy Diversity
Unlikely
35.1 / 73.0
24.6 / 56.8
5.0 / 27.5
23.3 / 42.5
4.0 / 21.0
6.5 / 24.7
16.4 / 40.9
R1-Zero-Div
5.4 / 22.1
7.6 / 25.8
5.0 / 25.0
7.2 / 17.1
3.7 / 10.3
3.1 / 13.0
5.3 / 18.9
DQO
30.8 / 60.1
22.6 / 41.2
2.5 / 17.5
27.0 / 42.3
2.6 / 7.7
2.4 / 10.2
14.7 / 29.8
Table 1: Main results on Qwen-2.5-Instruct with 0.5B and 1.5B backbones. Each cell reports pass@1 / pass@8.
Model
Div-Eq
EAD
Emb-Div
Qwen-2.5-0.5B
Base
0.5128
0.4802
0.0804
GRPO
0.4418
0.3880
0.0574
Unlikely
0.3967
0.3169
0.1327
R1-Zero-Div
0.9871
0.5938
0.2018
DQO
0.7215
0.6757
0.4566
DPH-RL
0.4708
0.4236
0.0664
Table 2: Diversity results using pass@8 rollouts averaged over six benchmarks. Per-dataset results are provided in Appendix E .
Figure 3: Relationship between trajectory suppression and gated replay loss during TAR training. Each point represents one training step; the x-axis shows the fraction of suppressed replay trajectories ( b(τ)>0 ), and the y-axis shows the gated replay loss.
Figure 4: Forgetting of base-model’s correct solutions after training. A solution is counted as forgotten if the final policy assigns the complete solution at least 10× lower sequence-level probability than the base model. We evaluate replay trajectories used during training (light blue), other correct base-model solutions to the same training questions (medium blue), and correct base-model solutions to unseen MATH-500 questions (dark blue).
Model
Reasoning
Diversity
TAR
41.2 / 61.1
0.4348 / 0.4263 / 0.0639
w/o token gate
40.4 / 59.0
0.4179 / 0.4004 / 0.0590
w/o rollout gate
38.5 / 58.7
0.4763 / 0.4755 / 0.0745
hard rollout gate
39.3 / 60.2
0.4714 / 0.4703 / 0.0731
Table 3: Ablation study on Qwen-2.5-1.5B-Instruct, averaged over six benchmarks. Reasoning reports pass@1 / pass@8; diversity reports Div-Eq / EAD / Emb-Div. Per-dataset results are provided in Appendix E .
Figure 5: Training dynamics for TAR and different ablated variants.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
0.5B
1.5B
Training epochs
5
3
GPUs
2 × A6000
2 × A100
Shared across scales
Train batch size
256
PPO mini batch size
128
PPO micro batch size per GPU
8
Appendix
Table 4: Shared training configuration.
Method
Method-specific settings
Unlikely
Likelihood-rank penalty β=0.25
R1-Zero-Div
Entropy regularization weight ω=0.01 ; applied only to responses with A^>0
Table 6: Memory bank statistics ( N=128 samples per problem, FPS with k=3 ).
Figure 6: Pairwise distance distributions of FPS-selected and randomly selected correct trajectories. Gray shows the mean pairwise cosine distance of three randomly selected correct trajectories, while blue and orange show the closest and farthest pair among k=3 FPS-selected trajectories. Dashed lines indicate medians.
Figure 7: Training dynamics comparison in terms of generation entropy.
Model
GSM8K
MATH-500
AMC
College Math
Minerva
OlympiadBench
Qwen-2.5-0.5B
Base
0.6578 / 0.4214 / 0.0424
0.4513 / 0.4600 / 0.0756
0.4891 / 0.4949 / 0.0969
0.4451 / 0.4679 / 0.0665
0.5791 / 0.5456 / 0.0989
0.4543 / 0.4914 / 0.1018
GRPO
0.4636 / 0.2823 / 0.0230
0.3780 / 0.3573 / 0.0523
0.4789 / 0.4361 / 0.0712
0.3806 / 0.3570 / 0.0470
0.5280 / 0.4683 / 0.0755
0.4219 / 0.4271 / 0.0755
Unlikely
0.4117 / 0.2421 / 0.1109
0.3699 / 0.2900 / 0.1272
0.4660 / 0.3397 / 0.1441
0.3397 / 0.3112 / 0.1238
0.3940 / 0.3760 / 0.1447
0.3988 / 0.3426 / 0.1456
R1-Zero-Div
0.9913 / 0.5851 / 0.2146
0.9877 / 0.5202 / 0.1873
0.9754 / 0.4931 / 0.1874
0.9895 / 0.7051 / 0.1943
0.9838 / 0.7298 / 0.2292
0.9948 / 0.5294 / 0.1982
DQO
0.6989 / 0.5464 / 0.3579
0.6757 / 0.6541 / 0.4435
0.8300 / 0.7982 / 0.5568
0.5126 / 0.5041 / 0.2224
0.7860 / 0.7470 / 0.5532
0.8257 / 0.8043 / 0.6055
DPH-RL
0.5402 / 0.3303 / 0.0294
0.4081 / 0.3993 / 0.0611
0.4794 / 0.4552 / 0.0817
0.4045 / 0.3966 / 0.0544
0.5481 / 0.5036 / 0.0848
0.4445 / 0.4566 / 0.0869
Appendix
Table 7: Diversity results on Qwen-2.5-Instruct using pass@8 rollouts. Each cell reports Div-Eq / EAD-Distinct-N / Emb-Div.
Model
GSM8K
MATH-500
AMC
College Math
Minerva
OlympiadBench
TAR
76.1 / 91.7
59.0 / 79.0
30.0 / 67.5
39.9 / 50.7
19.5 / 36.0
22.4 / 41.6
w/o token gate
74.0 / 91.8
58.4 / 77.4
30.0 / 60.0
40.0 / 50.4
19.5 / 34.2
20.7 / 40.4
w/o rollout gate
72.7 / 92.7
53.0 / 77.0
30.0 / 57.5
37.3 / 51.7
18.0 / 33.1
19.7 / 40.3
hard rollout gate
72.5 / 92.7
53.6 / 77.0
35.0 / 67.5
38.6 / 51.1
17.6 / 33.5
18.7 / 39.1
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation study on Qwen-2.5-1.5B-Instruct. Each cell reports pass@1 / pass@8.
Model
GSM8K
MATH-500
AMC
College Math
Minerva
OlympiadBench
TAR
0.4986 / 0.3621 / 0.0317
0.3726 / 0.3988 / 0.0576
0.4399 / 0.4518 / 0.0831
0.3621 / 0.3957 / 0.0483
0.5293 / 0.5018 / 0.0834
0.4065 / 0.4478 / 0.0793
w/o token gate
0.4554 / 0.3162 / 0.0250
0.3504 / 0.3691 / 0.0525
0.4321 / 0.4467 / 0.0752
0.3386 / 0.3530 / 0.0430
0.5260 / 0.4827 / 0.0825
0.4046 / 0.4349 / 0.0755
w/o rollout gate
0.5805 / 0.4337 / 0.0436
0.4139 / 0.4609 / 0.0709
0.4819 / 0.4901 / 0.0900
0.4021 / 0.4576 / 0.0591
0.5503 / 0.5317 / 0.0928
0.4293 / 0.4787 / 0.0904
hard rollout gate
0.5729 / 0.4250 / 0.0423
0.4113 / 0.4527 / 0.0699
0.4731 / 0.4862 / 0.0876
0.3970 / 0.4483 / 0.0576
0.5488 / 0.5332 / 0.0924
0.4251 / 0.4765 / 0.0889
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation study of diversity on Qwen-2.5-1.5B-Instruct using pass@8 rollouts. Each cell reports Div-Eq / EAD / Emb-Div.
Model
GSM8K
MATH-500
AMC
College Math
Minerva
OlympiadBench
Qwen-2.5-0.5B
Base
0.5915 / 0.4463 / 0.0320
0.4208 / 0.4847 / 0.0488
0.5773 / 0.5681 / 0.0571
0.3877 / 0.4784 / 0.0444
0.5569 / 0.6017 / 0.0804
0.4758 / 0.5470 / 0.0745
GRPO
0.3818 / 0.2913 / 0.0159
0.3235 / 0.3567 / 0.0328
0.5216 / 0.4712 / 0.0419
0.3234 / 0.3516 / 0.0283
0.4934 / 0.5008 / 0.0545
0.4396 / 0.4724 / 0.0450
Unlikely
0.4116 / 0.2439 / 0.1003
0.3490 / 0.2644 / 0.1064
0.5451 / 0.3641 / 0.1333
0.3016 / 0.2753 / 0.1093
0.3548 / 0.3218 / 0.1362
0.4226 / 0.3322 / 0.1291
R1-Zero-Div
0.9862 / 0.3991 / 0.1253
0.9934 / 0.3268 / 0.0891
1.0000 / 0.2523 / 0.0744
0.9968 / 0.4935 / 0.0840
0.8562 / 0.4910 / 0.0936
0.9891 / 0.2892 / 0.0853
DQO
0.5213 / 0.4181 / 0.0332
0.3855 / 0.4319 / 0.0487
0.6512 / 0.5253 / 0.0431
0.3714 / 0.4211 / 0.0397
0.4534 / 0.4830 / 0.0528
0.5509 / 0.6006 / 0.1010
DPH-RL
0.4594 / 0.3456 / 0.0217
0.3585 / 0.4070 / 0.0368
0.5611 / 0.5498 / 0.0511
0.3397 / 0.3931 / 0.0341
0.5296 / 0.5381 / 0.0567
0.4606 / 0.5101 / 0.0608
Appendix
Table 10: Diversity of correct rollouts on Qwen-2.5-Instruct using pass@8 sampling. Only problems with at least two correct responses are included. Each cell reports Div-Eq / EAD / Emb-Div.
Reinforcement learning studies how agents learn sequential decisions from rewards and interaction, balancing exploration, performance, safety, and adaptation.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has achieved substantial gains in single-attempt accuracy (Pass@1) on reasoning tasks, yet often suffers from reduced multi-sample coverage (Pass@K), indicating diversity collapse. We identify a structural cause for this degradation: common RLVR objectives, such as GRPO, are indifferent to how probability mass is distributed among correct solutions. Combined with stochastic training dynamics, this indifference induces a self-reinforcing collapse, in which probability mass concentrates on a narrow subset of correct outputs while alternative valid solutions are suppressed. We formalize this collapse mechanism and further characterize the optimal policy structure under two complementary criteria: robustness and entropy-regularized optimality, which identify the Uniform-Correct Policy as uniquely optimal. Motivated by this analysis, we propose Uniform-Correct Policy Optimization (UCPO), a modification to GRPO that adds a conditional uniformity penalty on the policy's distribution over correct solutions. The penalty redistributes gradient signal toward underrepresented correct responses, encouraging uniform allocation of probability mass within the correct set. Across three models (1.5B-7B parameters) and five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, UCPO improves Pass@K and diversity while maintaining competitive Pass@1, achieving up to +10% absolute improvement on AIME24 at Pass@64 and up to 45% higher equation-level diversity within the correct set. The code is available at https://github.com/AnamikaLochab/UCPO.
Anamika Lochab, Bolian Li, Ruqi Zhang
Department of Computer Science Purdue University, West Lafayette
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) trains reasoning models without labeled trajectories, using groups of verifier-scored rollouts to explore alternative reasoning paths. Limited rollout diversity is a central bottleneck, typically addressed through adjustments to temperature, prefixes, or rollout selection. We identify the first token of the response as a structurally distinct target for diversification, largely overlooked in prior work. We find that the first-token distribution is sharply concentrated and only weakly related to downstream correctness, as lower-probability candidates can yield similarly accurate responses. Diversifying the first token can therefore broaden the reasoning paths explored within each rollout group with little loss in response quality. Motivated by this observation, we introduce REFT (Rollout Exploration with First-Token Diversification), a lightweight modification to RLVR. REFT samples first tokens uniformly from the policy's top-N candidates and allocates rollouts evenly across the sampled tokens, leaving the rest of the pipeline unchanged. We evaluate REFT on eight models spanning multiple architectures and sizes (0.5B-14B), with mathematical reasoning and code-generation tasks under GRPO and DAPO. Across these settings, REFT consistently improves Pass@1, Pass@8, and Pass@64. It also outperforms competing diversification methods at every evaluated budget, incurring the lowest rollout cost.
Soeun Kim, Albert No
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Yonsei University
A language model (LM) can usually answer the same question in more than one way, but reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is indifferent to which correct answer a model produces. A solution will earn the same reward whether it is the thousandth copy of a familiar answer or one the model has never produced before. Yet, there is potential value in having the model retain multiple correct solutions as it is trained. For instance, multiple modes may give users a choice and provide problem-solving strategies that improve overall model performance. Here, we introduce ModeBench, a benchmark of multi-solution tasks in which the verifier returns both correctness and mode discovered. We then use ModeBench to measure how solution diversity changes under RLVR post-training. We find that RLVR post-training concentrates probability onto fewer correct modes even as accuracy holds or improves, and moreover, that frontier models are already highly concentrated. We then introduce our solution, Re:Max, which stores one verified example per discovered mode in a replay buffer and trains on those stored modes uniformly. A solution found once is, therefore, practiced as often as one found repeatedly. Across three model scales, two RL objectives, and harder task constructions, replay improves both how often a policy succeeds and how many different ways it can succeed.
Liv G. d'Aliberti, Marwa Abdulhai, Sofiia Druchyna +2