Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) improves language-model reasoning by scoring sampled responses with a rule-based verifier and reinforcing those that pass. Where a classifier's training couples predicted probability to labels, nothing ties an RLVR policy's confidence in a response to its reward: aligned training would drive responses with the same advantage toward equal confidence, yet the advantage is blind to confidence. Under this sequence-confidence misalignment, a success the policy barely found earns the same update as one it produces with near certainty, and a confident error is corrected no harder than an exploratory one. We propose SCARL (Sequence Confidence-Aligned Reinforcement Learning), which reshapes, but never re-signs, each advantage with the alignment gap between the response's group-relative confidence and the outcome its advantage certifies, normalized into shares of each class's advantage budget. Misaligned samples absorb the force, responses with the same advantage are driven toward equal confidence, and repairing the misalignment doubles as a remedy for the entropy collapse that erodes exploration. SCARL provably reduces to its base estimator when a class's confidences agree, adds no extra passes and one hyperparameter. On Qwen3-4B-Base it lifts average Pass@32 by 2.4 points over DAPO and is best among nine compute-matched methods on both coverage and per-draw accuracy; applied unchanged across four estimators and four backbones, it improves 14 of 16 settings while preserving policy entropy and widening the confidence-correctness separation. Our code is available at https://github.com/kezhh163/scarl.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Sequence-confidence misalignment and its repair. Group-relative RLVR gives each response a sequence-level advantage ( A ) blind to how confidently the policy produced it. SCARL turns token log-probabilities into a group-relative sequence confidence (gray; here 0.6 and 0.4 ), reads the advantage sign as the outcome to match ( 1 or 0 ), and reshapes A with their distance, the alignment gap (hatched): misaligned responses absorb the update, aligned ones are left alone.
Figure 2: Avg@32 (left) and Pass@32 (right) on Qwen3-4B-Base, averaged over the five benchmarks, across 150 training steps; step 0 is the untrained base model. SCARL (bold) leads both metrics through the second half of training, with a widening margin.
Method
AMC23
AIME24
AIME25
Minerva
MATH-500
Avg.
Base model (no RL)
75.1
25.9
23.3
56.3
92.0
54.5
Base estimators
GRPO
88.9
44.6
44.7
56.4
95.3
66.0
DAPO
90.4
46.1
45.0
58.4
95.5
67.1
GSPO
91.8
45.3
42.9
58.3
92.8
66.2
SAPO
92.2
45.7
43.1
59.3
94.8
67.0
Table 1: Main comparison on Qwen3-4B-Base. Pass@32 on five competition-mathematics benchmarks (%), at each method’s best checkpoint by average Pass@32. Bold marks the best value per column; the untrained base model is a reference, excluded from bolding.
Backbone
+GRPO
+DAPO
+GSPO
+SAPO
Qwen3-4B-Base
67.3( +1.4 )
69.5( +2.4 )
67.7( +1.5 )
68.1( +1.1 )
Qwen3-1.7B-Base
56.3( +1.8 )
58.0( +2.2 )
57.1( +0.7 )
55.6( − 0.2 )
DS-R1-1.5B
70.5( +1.2 )
72.0( +0.5 )
71.4( +0.5 )
71.6( +0.1 )
Hunyuan-1.8B
62.0( +0.8 )
64.4( +1.5 )
62.1( +0.1 )
62.5( − 0.2 )
Table 2: SCARL as a drop-in modifier. Average Pass@32 (%) of each estimator with SCARL added, on four backbones (in parentheses: change vs. the plain estimator; per-benchmark values in the appendix). DS-R1-1.5B: DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B.
Variant
Avg.
Δ
GSPO (base estimator)
56.4
—
+ SCARL w/o class-wise norm.
47.0
−9.4
+ SCARL w/o alignment target
56.6
+0.2
+ SCARL w/ per-token mean confidence
55.3
−1.1
+ SCARL (full; τ=5 )
57.1
+0.7
Temperature sweep (full SCARL)
Table 3: Component ablations and temperature sensitivity (Qwen3-1.7B-Base, GSPO base; average Pass@32 over the five benchmarks). Δ is relative to plain GSPO; per-benchmark values in the appendix.
Figure 3: Mechanism. Top: policy entropy on Qwen3-4B-Base per base estimator, without (grey dashed) and with ( crimson ) SCARL. Bottom: confidence separation (Cohen’s d , Eq. ( 9 )) in three settings; dotted lines at d=0.5 and 0.8 . EMA-smoothed (span 8 ) over faint raw values.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Space
Mechanism
Clip-Higher ( Yu et al., 2025 )
importance ratio
asymmetric clipping range
SAPO ( Gao et al., 2025 )
importance ratio
smooth gate replaces hard clipping
GSPO ( Zheng et al., 2025 )
ratio granularity
length-normalized sequence-level ratio
Entropy / cov. control ( Cui et al., 2025 )
regularizer, gradient
bonus terms; detach or clip high-cov. tokens
CW-GRPO ( Wang et al., 2026a )
token advantage
Gaussian-kernel weight on log-prob/advantage covariance
SCARL (ours)
advantage
alignment-gap reshaping of the advantage
Appendix
Table 4: Where different interventions on the group-relative update act. SCARL targets sequence-confidence misalignment in advantage space and composes with all of them.
Table 5: Confidence-aware modifications of the group-relative update. “Sign” states how the direction of the base update is protected; “Reference” states what each response’s confidence is measured against.
Method
AMC23
AIME24
AIME25
Minerva
MATH-500
Avg.
Base model (no RL)
71.2
14.7
11.4
48.0
87.8
46.6
Base estimators
GRPO
79.1
31.9
22.6
49.3
89.5
54.5
DAPO
83.4
31.4
22.8
51.9
89.6
55.8
GSPO
83.3
28.7
27.2
52.8
90.0
56.4
SAPO
81.6
28.4
26.8
51.1
90.8
55.8
Appendix
Table 6: Main comparison on Qwen3-1.7B-Base (companion to the main paper’s Qwen3-4B-Base table). Pass@32 on five competition-mathematics benchmarks (%), at each method’s best checkpoint; bold marks the best value per column, with the untrained base model excluded from bolding.
Method
AMC23
AIME24
AIME25
Minerva
MATH-500
Avg.
Δ Avg.
Qwen3-4B-Base
Base model (no RL)
75.1
25.9
23.3
56.3
92.0
54.5
GRPO
88.9
44.6
44.7
56.4
95.3
66.0
+ SCARL
89.7
50.3
41.1
60.0
95.7
67.3
+1.4
DAPO
90.4
46.1
45.0
58.4
95.5
67.1
+ SCARL
95.3
49.0
50.1
57.4
95.6
69.5
+2.4
Appendix
Table 7: SCARL as a drop-in modifier of four base estimators, across four backbones (full per-benchmark results). Pass@32 (%) at each run’s best checkpoint. Each estimator appears as a base row and a + SCARL row; within every pair, bold marks the higher per-column value, and Δ is the change in average Pass@32 ( gain / loss ), computed from unrounded values. “Base model (no RL)” rows give each untrained backbone as a reference.
Variant
AMC23
AIME24
AIME25
Minerva
MATH-500
Avg.
Δ Avg.
Component ablations
GSPO (base estimator)
83.3
28.7
27.2
52.8
90.0
56.4
—
+ SCARL w/o class-wise norm.
65.8
15.8
16.8
49.0
87.6
47.0
−9.4
+ SCARL w/o alignment target
83.1
34.5
22.6
52.0
90.6
56.6
+0.2
+ SCARL w/ per-token mean confidence
79.9
32.7
20.9
52.7
90.1
55.3
−1.1
+ SCARL (full)
84.8
28.7
29.0
52.3
90.6
57.1
+0.7
Appendix
Table 8: Component ablations and temperature sensitivity, full per-benchmark results (Qwen3-1.7B-Base, GSPO base estimator). Pass@32 (%) at each run’s best checkpoint; Δ is the change in average Pass@32 relative to plain GSPO, computed from unrounded values. The default τ=5 row duplicates the full-SCARL run for reference.
Training
Framework
verl v0.4.1 ( Sheng et al., 2025 )
Prompt set
DAPO-Math-17K ( Yu et al., 2025 )
Reward
+1 verified correct, −1 otherwise
Verifier
rule-based, per data source (Appendix E.1 )
Training steps
150
Group size G
8
Appendix
Table 9: Shared training and evaluation configuration. Every method in every experiment uses these values; per-estimator settings appear in Table 10 .
Estimator
Settings
GRPO
symmetric clip ε=0.2 ; KL loss toward the reference policy, coefficient 0.001 (low-variance estimator); token-mean aggregation
DAPO
εlow=0.2 , εhigh=0.28 ; dynamic sampling (filter by accuracy, generation batch 2,048 , at most 10 generation rounds); soft overlong punishment (buffer 4,096 tokens, penalty factor 1.0 ); token-mean aggregation; no KL
GSPO
sequence-level ratio with clip range 3×10−4 / 4×10−4 ; no KL
SAPO
smooth gate with temperatures τpos=1.0 , τneg=1.05 (published defaults); no hard clipping; no KL
Dr. GRPO
advantage without std normalization; global-constant token-loss aggregation (seq-mean-token-sum-norm); no KL
Appendix
Table 10: Per-estimator surrogate settings, following each method’s published recipe (extracted from the released run scripts). All rows share the configuration of Table 9 .
Benchmark
Problems
AMC23
40
AIME24
30
AIME25
30
Minerva Math
272
MATH-500
500
Appendix
Table 11: Evaluation benchmarks. Pass@32 and Avg@32 are averaged over each benchmark’s problems (§ 3.1 ).
Reinforcement learning studies how agents learn sequential decisions from rewards and interaction, balancing exploration, performance, safety, and adaptation.
Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has recently become a key paradigm for improving the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet it remains limited by sparse binary rewards and its ignorance of model-internal uncertainty. In this paper, we propose ConSteer-RL, a simple yet effective framework that integrates token-level confidence signals derived from model log-probabilities into RLVR training. Specifically, building upon the Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) framework, we construct a confidence-aware reward by aggregating per-token probabilities into a scalar confidence score and incorporating it into an awareness-based reward shaping mechanism that penalizes overconfident errors while reinforcing correct and confident reasoning. Experimental results demonstrate that ConSteer-RL consistently outperforms strong GRPO baselines, achieving average improvements of 2.3%-4.0% across different model scales.
Qing Miao, Yiming Zhao, Jing Yang +5
Xi’an Jiaotong University · University of Science and Technology of China
Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) on chain-of-thought reasoning has become a standard part of language model post-training recipes. A common assumption is that the reasoning chains trained through RLVR reliably represent how a model gets to its answer. In this paper, we develop two metrics for critically examining this assumption: Causal Importance of Reasoning (CIR), which measures the cumulative effect of reasoning tokens on the final answer, and Sufficiency of Reasoning (SR), which measures whether a verifier can arrive at an unambiguous answer based on the reasoning alone. Through experiments with the Qwen2.5 model series and ReasoningGym tasks, we find that: (1) while RLVR does improve task accuracy, it does not reliably improve CIR or SR, calling the role of reasoning in model performance into question; (2) a small amount of SFT before RLVR can be a remedy for low CIR and SR; and (3) CIR and SR can be improved even without SFT by applying auxiliary CIR/SR rewards on top of the outcome-based reward. This joint reward matches the accuracy of RLVR while also leading to causally important and sufficient reasoning. These results show that RLVR does not always lead models to rely on reasoning in the way that is commonly thought, but this issue can be remedied with simple modifications to the post-training procedure.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become the leading paradigm for enhancing reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs). However, standard RLVR algorithms suffer from a well-documented pathology: while they improve Pass@1 accuracy through sharpened sampling, they simultaneously narrow the model's reasoning boundary and reduce generation diversity. We identify a root cause that existing methods overlook: the uniform penalization of errors. Current approaches -- whether data-filtering methods that select prompts by difficulty, or advantage normalization schemes -- treat all incorrect rollouts within a group identically. We show that this uniformity allows overconfident errors (incorrect reasoning paths that the RL process has spuriously reinforced) to persist and monopolize probability mass, ultimately suppressing valid exploratory trajectories. To address this, we propose the Asymmetric Confidence-aware Error Penalty (ACE). ACE introduces a per-rollout confidence shift metric, c_i = log(pi_theta(y_i|x) / pi_ref(y_i|x)), to dynamically modulate negative advantages. Theoretically, we demonstrate that ACE's gradient can be decomposed into the gradient of a selective regularizer restricted to overconfident errors, plus a well-characterized residual that partially moderates the regularizer's strength. We conduct extensive experiments fine-tuning Qwen2.5-Math-7B, Qwen3-8B-Base, and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct on the DAPO-Math-17K dataset using GRPO and DAPO within the VERL framework. Evaluated on MATH-500 and AIME 2025, ACE composes seamlessly with existing methods and consistently improves the full Pass@k spectrum across all three model families and benchmarks.