Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) trains a language model by sampling responses, scoring them with an automatic verifier, and updating the policy from the resulting rewards. The policy therefore receives direct learning signals only from trajectories that appear in its rollouts. Yet repeated sampling from the same policy can concentrate on similar reasoning paths, leaving useful alternatives unexplored under a fixed rollout budget. We introduce Activation-Space Exploration (ASE), an online method for diversifying training rollouts. By clustering activation differences between correct and incorrect responses to the same problem, ASE builds a structured bank of latent exploration vectors. Different vectors are then applied to subsequent rollouts to explore alternative reasoning paths. On Qwen3-1.7B-Base and Qwen3-8B-Base trained on DAPO-Math-17k, ASE improves average Mean@8 across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks over GRPO by 4.87 and 1.87 percentage points, respectively, under the same rollout budget.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation and high-level overview of activation-space exploration. Standard GRPO samples all responses from one proposal distribution, whereas ASE uses outcome feedback to maintain multiple activation-space directions, routes responses through different proposals, and updates the actor and vector bank online.
Figure 2: ASE pipeline. We replay successful and unsuccessful responses to read out hidden activations, cluster their pairwise differences to form exploration directions, match and smooth the directions across updates, and inject one selected direction into the residual stream for each routed response.
Mathematical benchmarks
OOD benchmarks
Method
MATH500
Minerva
AIME24
AIME25
AMC24
Olympiad
Math Avg.
MMLU-Pro
GPQA-D
BBH
OOD Avg.
GRPO
88.17 / 94.87
43.98 / 55.76
26.39 / 48.89
21.39 / 37.78
58.06 / 82.22
55.80 / 70.18
48.96 / 64.95
67.62 / 85.64
49.45 / 79.80
76.73 / 91.19
64.60 / 85.54
DAPO
86.09 / 93.20
42.56 / 54.17
21.53 / 41.11
18.06 / 30.00
48.98 / 74.07
51.38 / 66.82
44.77 / 59.89
61.28 / 83.38
46.70 / 80.81
76.71 / 91.32
61.56 / 85.17
Dr.GRPO
87.83 / 95.87
43.20 / 59.44
25.42 / 47.78
20.69 / 37.78
55.56 / 77.78
57.78 / 74.78
48.41 / 65.57
65.20 / 86.00
48.34 / 84.85
77.79 / 91.99
63.78 / 87.61
GSPO
88.05 / 95.00
43.01 / 55.51
25.00 / 53.33
22.50 / 36.67
58.33 / 80.00
56.71 / 72.40
48.94 / 65.49
64.94 / 84.08
47.47 / 80.81
75.74 / 91.20
62.72 / 85.36
RePO
86.09 / 94.53
41.57 / 54.29
22.64 / 42.22
18.61 / 32.22
53.06 / 81.48
53.34 / 71.36
45.89 / 62.69
61.21 / 84.40
43.96 / 81.31
67.92 / 91.35
57.69 / 85.69
Table 1: Main results for Qwen3-8B-Base trained on DAPO-Math-17k. Scores are reported as Mean@8 / Pass@8 (in percent). Reported scores are averaged over three runs. Each Δ row reports the absolute difference from the corresponding baseline in percentage points.
Mathematical benchmarks
OOD benchmarks
Method
MATH500
Minerva
AIME24
AIME25
AMC24
Olympiad
Math Avg.
MMLU-Pro
GPQA-D
BBH
OOD Avg.
GRPO
65.59 / 83.47
27.37 / 43.50
6.39 / 14.44
5.42 / 22.22
18.24 / 40.74
29.82 / 50.59
25.47 / 42.50
35.46 / 69.09
26.45 / 79.12
44.70 / 84.15
35.54 / 77.45
DAPO
68.02 / 84.20
27.94 / 45.22
10.00 / 26.67
5.00 / 18.89
21.20 / 43.70
30.87 / 50.49
27.17 / 44.86
39.22 / 69.27
29.12 / 76.60
50.43 / 85.28
39.59 / 77.05
Dr.GRPO
68.16 / 84.53
30.39 / 45.59
12.08 / 23.33
2.92 / 12.22
21.39 / 40.74
31.43 / 51.68
27.73 / 43.02
40.54 / 70.33
30.30 / 77.61
51.99 / 85.43
40.94 / 77.79
GSPO
68.42 / 84.80
28.71 / 44.36
9.58 / 22.22
4.86 / 18.89
18.24 / 39.26
32.00 / 53.81
26.97 / 43.89
38.38 / 70.15
27.90 / 78.96
47.02 / 84.75
37.77 / 77.95
RePO
65.42 / 84.67
26.19 / 44.61
7.08 / 22.22
4.31 / 15.56
17.78 / 42.22
29.60 / 51.88
25.06 / 43.53
36.15 / 69.45
26.54 / 76.26
44.36 / 84.96
35.68 / 76.89
Table 2: Main results for Qwen3-1.7B-Base trained on DAPO-Math-17k. Scores are reported as Mean@8 / Pass@8 (in percent). Reported scores are averaged over three runs. Each Δ row reports the absolute difference from the corresponding baseline in percentage points.
Figure 5Table 6
Mathematical benchmarks
OOD benchmarks
Method
MATH500
Minerva
AIME24
AIME25
AMC24
Olympiad
Math Avg.
MMLU-Pro
GPQA-D
BBH
OOD Avg.
Dr.GRPO
68.27 / 84.60
31.25 / 47.06
12.08 / 20.00
2.92 / 16.67
20.83 / 40.00
31.36 / 52.67
27.79 / 43.50
40.36 / 70.62
29.86 / 77.27
52.03 / 85.61
40.75 / 77.83
ASE-Dr.GRPO
69.40 / 86.20
30.06 / 47.43
11.25 / 26.67
5.83 / 16.67
24.17 / 44.44
33.70 / 52.67
29.07 / 45.68
40.45 / 69.23
31.06 / 77.78
51.81 / 84.95
41.11 / 77.32
Δ vs. Dr.GRPO
+1.13 / +1.60
-1.19 / +0.37
-0.83 / +6.67
+2.91 / +0.00
+3.34 / +4.44
+2.34 / +0.00
+1.28 / +2.18
+0.09 / -1.39
+1.20 / +0.51
-0.22 / -0.66
+0.36 / -0.51
GSPO
69.00 / 86.20
28.72 / 43.75
8.75 / 23.33
5.00 / 23.33
19.17 / 42.22
32.64 / 54.30
27.21 / 45.52
38.15 / 70.48
26.96 / 80.81
46.91 / 84.55
37.34 / 78.61
ASE-GSPO
69.80 / 87.00
30.19 / 47.43
10.00 / 23.33
6.25 / 13.33
23.33 / 48.89
32.60 / 54.75
28.70 / 45.79
40.48 / 72.52
28.98 / 78.79
48.80 / 85.53
39.42 / 78.95
Table 5: ASE-Dr.GRPO and ASE-GSPO on Qwen3-1.7B-Base. Entries are Mean@8 / Pass@8 (%); Math Avg. and OOD Avg. cover six mathematical and three OOD benchmarks, respectively.
Model
Method
Step time (s/step) ↓
Training throughput (k tokens/s/GPU) ↑
Rollout latency ( μ s/output token) ↓
Actor-update time ( μ s/valid token) ↓
1.7B
GRPO
92.21
2.845
52.91
29.15
1.7B
ASE-GRPO
93.05
2.666
54.35
33.60
1.7B
Δ vs. GRPO
+0.91%
− 6.29%
+2.72%
+15.27%
8B
GRPO
136.10
1.041
60.08
49.35
8B
ASE-GRPO
145.88
0.974
61.59
56.08
8B
Δ vs. GRPO
+7.19%
− 6.44%
+2.51%
+13.64%
Table 6: Training-time overhead on matched GRPO and ASE-GRPO runs. Throughput uses all prompt and response tokens, rollout latency is normalized by output tokens, and actor-update latency is normalized by all valid tokens.
Table 10: Sensitivity to the number of clusters K . For this ASE sweep, we fix α=0.4 and β=0.5 .
β
Math Avg.
OOD Avg.
0.0
26.48/42.63
35.84/72.25
0.1
28.29/45.41
38.02/72.10
0.3
26.27/46.10
35.33/76.78
0.5
30.21/46.44
40.79/79.71
0.7
29.41/48.83
37.14/79.14
0.9
29.35/47.81
39.89/78.35
Appendix
Table 11: Sensitivity to the EMA coefficient β . For this ASE sweep, we fix K=3 and α=0.2 .
α
Math Avg.
OOD Avg.
0.2
30.21/46.44
40.79/79.71
0.3
28.38/48.05
38.75/77.62
0.4
29.64/47.02
39.62/76.52
0.5
30.31/48.67
41.35/79.97
0.6
29.21/44.63
39.43/76.84
Appendix
Table 12: Sensitivity to the steering strength α . For this ASE sweep, we fix K=3 and β=0.5 .
Readout fraction f
Math Avg.
OOD Avg.
0.25
28.93/46.79
38.24/77.59
0.50
27.89/43.94
39.68/76.98
0.75
27.59/44.95
40.00/78.36
Appendix
Table 13: Sensitivity to the response-relative activation readout position. We fix K=3 , α=0.2 , and β=0.7 ; scores are Mean@8 / Pass@8 (%). Math Avg. and OOD Avg. use the same benchmark groups as the main tables.
Method
Math Avg.
GRPO
26.00/43.91
Unstructured random steering
26.65/41.59
ASE-GRPO
30.31/48.67
Appendix
Table 14: Six-benchmark Math Avg. (Mean@8 / Pass@8, %). GRPO and ASE-GRPO use the first evaluation at their selected checkpoints.
Quantity
Values or definition
Models
Base; standard GRPO; ASE-GRPO
Number of routes K
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
Capture fraction f
0.25,0.50,0.75
Strength α
0.25,0.50,0.75,1.00
Conditions per model
7×3×4=84
Repeats
Three independent evaluations per cell
Appendix
Table 15: Inference-time sweep grid and reporting units.
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.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) for language-model reasoning can fail at both extremes of task difficulty: easy prompts often produce all-correct, low-diversity rollout groups with little gradient signal, while hard prompts can produce all-incorrect groups with no positive reward. We introduce ExTra (Exploratory Trajectory Optimization), a GRPO-compatible framework that extracts exploration signals from the model's own rollouts. ExTra combines two mechanisms: (i) a novelty reward that adds embedding-based diversity bonuses after GRPO normalization, rewarding diverse correct solutions; and (ii) entropy-guided prefix regeneration, which scores partial trajectories using entropy signals and continues exploration from promising intermediate steps. Across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks, ExTra improves Qwen3-1.7B over GRPO by about +5 points on pass@1 and +7 points on pass@16, showing that trajectory-level exploration signals can improve both single-sample accuracy and inference-time coverage.
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.