Rollout decoding affects both which trajectories are used for reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) and how many completion tokens are spent collecting them. We study whether candidate-token support should remain fixed or widen during training in the context of rollout sampling efficiency. Our main schedule moves from top-K=10 to K=20 and then to full support as the attempted-token budget increases. In a 4B code-RLVR setting, the schedule has a higher interpolated 150M-token validation value than its matched fixed-K=10 continuation in all three runs, with a mean gain of 1.80±0.42 points. The schedule also performs comparably to a separately trained fixed-K=20 baseline, the strongest fixed-support setting in our sweep. Follow-up experiments suggest that late widening to full support is the most promising variant, although the evidence remains noisy, and mixed-reward-group diagnostics do not clearly explain the gain. An exploratory single-run test replay yields identical point estimates for the schedule and fixed K=10. Overall, our results show that rollout support is an important control for sampling efficiency in RLVR and motivate further study of adaptive support schedules.
Figures & tables
Method
Training support
Acc@150M
AUC150M
Max bracket (M)
Full support
full
18.34±2.51
16.26±1.80
105.95
Fixed support
10
21.49±2.58
18.56±1.50
117.11
Fixed support
20
23.35±1.28
19.16±0.89
42.92
Scheduled
10→20→full
23.29±2.51
19.16±1.58
102.48
Matched gain
schedule − fixed K=10
+1.80±0.42
+0.60±0.08
—
Table 1: Piecewise-linear common-budget validation estimates at B⋆=150 M attempted completion tokens (percentages; three runs per method). Reported ± values are sample standard deviations across runs conditional on the interpolation and do not capture uncertainty from sparse evaluation checkpoints. The bold row reports the matched schedule–fixed- K=10 difference. “Max bracket” is the widest run level interval between observed validation checkpoints surrounding 150M.
Figure 1: Validation versus attempted completion tokens for the primary support strategies. Lines and bands show mean ±1 sample standard deviation after piecewise-linear interpolation; symbols mark actual evaluations. Vertical lines are nominal transitions; the y -axis is truncated. Fixed K=20 is independently trained.
Continuation or gate
n
Acc@B⋆
Post-parent AUC
Actor entropy
Matched-parent decomposition
K=10 throughout
3
22.97±3.94
20.38±2.68
0.348±0.013
10→20
3
21.41±2.78
19.70±1.99
0.359±0.043
10→full at 100M
3
24.23±1.42
20.96±0.97
0.437±0.074
10→20→full
3
23.35±2.54
20.44±2.03
0.447±0.067
Exploratory entropy gate
Table 2: Piecewise-linear follow-up estimates at 150M attempted completion tokens. Boldface marks the highest accuracy and AUC within each comparison block. Accuracy and AUC are percentages; actor entropy is the linearly estimated logged token-mean in nats, while H20 is the gate statistic. The decomposition reports mean ± sample standard deviation. Gate rows are single-run exploratory continuations.
Final-interval support
Mixed groups (%)
Mean length
Mixed groups/M tokens
Fixed K=10
52.33±5.08
8,152±1,527
8.13±0.91
Direct late full
54.44±3.64
9,121±855
7.48±0.36
Three-stage schedule
53.90±1.98
8,421±1,463
8.13±1.13
Table 3: Rollout-group diagnostics over the final 100–150M-token interval (three runs per method). “Mixed” means that a prompt’s eight rollouts contain both correct and incorrect attempts. Wider-support arms have slightly more mixed groups but also longer completions, yielding no clear increase in mixed groups per attempted token.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Run A Acc/AUC
Run B Acc/AUC
Run C Acc/AUC
Full support
20.95 / 18.28
15.95 / 14.83
18.14 / 15.67
Fixed K=10
23.17 / 19.79
22.77 / 19.01
18.52 / 16.89
Fixed K=20
21.90 / 18.17
23.83 / 19.88
24.33 / 19.42
Scheduled
25.29 / 20.47
24.10 / 19.62
20.47 / 17.41
Appendix
Table 4: Per-run piecewise-linear estimates in percentage points at 150M attempted completion tokens.
Method
Run A (M)
Run B (M)
Run C (M)
Full support
138.1–244.1
116.2–158.4
132.8–225.2
Fixed K=10
144.6–261.7
116.2–221.9
135.7–208.8
Fixed K=20
108.1–151.0
134.5–153.9
134.8–154.7
Scheduled
51.4–153.5
119.1–221.5
81.9–152.8
Appendix
Table 5: Actual evaluation checkpoints immediately bracketing 150M attempted completion tokens. As a descriptive check, the mean success rates at each run’s nearest raw checkpoint are 17.80, 21.18, 23.62, and 23.20% in row order; those checkpoints occur at different token counts.
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).
Pixel Nomand, Elena Voss, Marcus Hale +1
University of Wisconsin–Madison · University of Washington
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
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) trains language models from checked task outcomes, but assigning a terminal reward to individual reasoning tokens or actions remains difficult. Group-relative methods such as Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) sample several attempts per prompt, but lose their reward-based learning signal when all attempts receive the same outcome. We propose Hindsight-Privileged RLVR (HP-RLVR), a single-rollout method that turns a completed trajectory's own future into token-level update weights. The generating policy snapshot scores each eligible token under its causal history and under a hindsight context containing the realized future and verifier feedback. A normalized Jensen--Shannon divergence between the two views weights the reward relative to a historical baseline, yielding bounded token credit for both successful and failed attempts, with no reference solution or learned critic. In paired Qwen3-8B runs over a shared 100-step schedule, HP-RLVR trains 1.21×, 1.46×, and 2.30× faster than GRPO on mathematics, code generation, and ALFWorld, using one eighth the rollouts per prompt. Accuracy is comparable overall, with HP-RLVR ahead on mathematics at all three sizes and GRPO ahead on code and ALFWorld. In ALFWorld, 43.2% (4B) and 49.0% (8B) of GRPO's gradient-norm records are zero, versus none for HP-RLVR.
Wei Chen, Yubing Wu, Zhou Xu +9
South China University of Technology · Tsinghua University · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology +3