Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has achieved great success in developing Large Language Models (LLMs) with chain-of-thought rollouts for many tasks such as math and coding. Nevertheless, RLVR struggles with sample efficiency on difficult problems where correct rollouts are hard to generate. Prior works propose to address this issue via demonstration-guided RLVR, i.e., to conduct Supervised FineTuning (SFT) when RL fails; however, SFT often requires a lot of data, which can be expensive to acquire. In this paper, we propose FEST, a FEw-ShoT demonstration-guided RLVR algorithm. It attains compelling results with only 128 demonstrations randomly selected from an SFT dataset. We find that three components are vital for the success: supervised signal, on-policy signal, and decaying weights on the few-shot SFT dataset to prevent overfitting from multiple-epoch training. On several benchmarks, FEST outperforms baselines with magnitudes less SFT data, even matching their performance with full dataset.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as an effective paradigm for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models. However, RLVR training is often hindered by sparse binary rewards and weak credit assignment, resulting in ambiguous optimization signals and underutilization of the useful information embedded in failed trajectories. To address this challenge, we propose Correction-Oriented Policy Optimization (CIPO), a simple and effective extension to RLVR that converts on-policy failed trajectories into correction-oriented supervision, without relying on any external signals. By jointly optimizing correction samples derived from the model's own failed attempts together with the standard RLVR objective, CIPO improves learning effectiveness while explicitly enhancing the model's ability to correct its own errors. Extensive experiments across 11 benchmarks spanning mathematical reasoning and code generation demonstrate that CIPO consistently and significantly outperforms strong baselines in both reasoning and correction performance. Moreover, CIPO yields stronger pass@K gains, indicating that it improves the model's intrinsic reasoning capacity rather than merely redistributing probability mass over existing correct answers.

We pursue a vision for self-improving language models in which the model does not merely generate problems or traces to imitate, but constructs the environments that train it. In zero-data reasoning RL, this reframes self-improvement from a data-generation loop into an environment-construction loop, where each artifact is a reusable executable object that samples instances, computes references, and scores responses. Whether this vision sustains improvement hinges on a single property: the environments must exhibit stable solve--verify asymmetry, the model must be able to write an oracle once that it cannot reliably execute in natural language on fresh instances. This asymmetry takes two complementary forms. Some tasks are algorithmically hard to reason through but trivial as code: a dynamic program or graph traversal, compiled once, yields unboundedly many calibrated instances. Others are intrinsically hard to solve but easy to verify, like planted subset-sum or constraint satisfaction. Both create a durable gap between proposing and solving that the policy cannot close by gaming the verifier, and it is this gap that keeps reward informative as the learner improves. We instantiate this view in EvoEnv, a single-policy generator, solver method that synthesizes Python environments from ten seeds and admits them only after staged validation, semantic self-review, solver-relative difficulty calibration, and novelty checks. The strongest evidence comes from the already-strong regime: on Qwen3-4B-Thinking, fixed public-data RLVR and fixed hand-crafted environment RLVR reduce the average, while EvoEnv improves it from 72.4 to 74.8, a relative gain of 3.3%. Stable self-improvement, we suggest, depends not on producing more synthetic data, but on models learning to construct worlds whose difficulty stays structurally beyond their own reach.

Genetic circuit design remains a laborious, expert-driven process despite decades of progress in synthetic biology. We study this problem through code generation: models produce Python code in pysbol3 to construct genetic circuits in the Synthetic Biology Open Language (SBOL), a formal representation that supports automated verification. We introduce GenCircuit-RL, a reinforcement learning framework built around hierarchical verification rewards that decompose correctness into five levels, from code execution to task-specific topological checks, and a four-stage curriculum that shifts optimization pressure from code generation to functional reasoning. We also introduce SynBio-Reason, a benchmark of 4,753 circuits spanning six canonical circuit types and nine tasks from code repair to de novo design, with held-out biological parts for out-of-distribution evaluation. Hierarchical verification improves task success on functional reasoning tasks by 14 to 16 percentage points over binary rewards, and curriculum learning is required for strong design performance. The resulting models generate topologically correct circuits, generalize to novel biological parts, and rediscover canonical designs from the synthetic biology literature.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) traditionally relies on a sparse, outcome-based signal. Recent work shows that providing a fine-grained, model-intrinsic signal (rewarding the confidence growth in the ground-truth answer) effectively improves language reasoning training by providing step-level guidance without costly external models. While effective for unimodal text, we find that naively applying this global reward to vision-language (V-L) reasoning is a suboptimal strategy, as the task is a heterogeneous mix of sparse visual perception and dense textual reasoning. This global normalization creates mixture-induced signal degradation, where the training signal for visual steps is statistically distorted by the predominant textual steps. We propose Perception-Decomposed Confidence Reward (PDCR), a framework that solves this by aligning the reward structure with the task's heterogeneous nature. PDCR first performs an unsupervised skill decomposition, introducing a model-internal Visual Dependence Score to quantify visual reliance and applying a clustering algorithm to separate perception and reasoning steps. Based on this, PDCR computes a decomposed advantage by normalizing confidence gains within each skill cluster. This intra-cluster normalization provides a stable, correctly-scaled signal for both perception and reasoning. We demonstrate that PDCR outperforms the naive, global-reward formulation and sparse-reward baselines on key V-L reasoning benchmarks.

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is one of the most widely adopted RLVR algorithms for post-training large language models on reasoning tasks. We first show that GRPO admits an equivalent discriminative reformulation, in which policy optimization maximizes the expected score gap between verified positive and negative rollouts. This reformulation reveals two objective-level limitations: likelihood-misaligned surrogate scores, in which clipped ratio-based scores are optimized rather than the sequence likelihoods that govern generation, and score-insensitive credit assignment, in which rollout-level credit does not reflect the current score gaps between positive and negative rollouts. To address these limitations, we propose ConSPO, a Contrastive Sequence-level Policy Optimization method that uses length-normalized sequence log-probabilities as rollout scores and contrasts verified positive rollouts against negative distractors within the same group. ConSPO optimizes a group-wise InfoNCE-style objective to adaptively strengthen updates for poorly separated positives and high-scoring negatives, together with a curriculum-scheduled margin that preserves separation pressure as training progresses. Experiments across diverse settings show that ConSPO outperforms strong baselines on challenging reasoning benchmarks. Code will be released upon paper acceptance.

Large language models are often post-trained with sparse verifier rewards, which indicate whether a sampled trajectory succeeds but provide limited guidance about where reasoning succeeds or fails. On-policy distillation (OPD) offers denser token-level supervision by training on student-generated trajectories, yet existing methods typically distill each rollout independently and ignore the other attempts sampled for the same prompt. We introduce Multi-Rollout On-Policy Distillation (MOPD), a peer-conditioned distillation framework that uses the student's local rollout group to construct more informative teacher signals. MOPD conditions the teacher on both successful and failed peer rollouts: successes provide positive evidence for valid reasoning patterns, while failures provide structured negative evidence about plausible mistakes to avoid. We study two peer-context constructions: positive peer imitation and contrastive success-failure conditioning. Experiments on competitive programming, mathematical reasoning, scientific question answering, and tool-use benchmarks show that MOPD consistently improves over standard on-policy baselines. Further teacher-signal analysis shows that mixed success-failure contexts better align teacher scores with verifier rewards, indicating that the gains arise from more faithful, instance-adaptive supervision. These results indicate that effective on-policy distillation should exploit the student's multi-rollout trial-and-error behavior rather than treating rollouts as isolated samples.

In this paper, we propose AlphaGRPO, a novel framework that applies Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to AR-Diffusion Unified Multimodal Models (UMMs) to enhance multimodal generation capabilities without an additional cold-start stage. Our approach unlocks the model's intrinsic potential to perform advanced reasoning tasks: Reasoning Text-to-Image Generation, where the model actively infers implicit user intents, and Self-Reflective Refinement, where it autonomously diagnoses and corrects misalignments in generated outputs. To address the challenge of providing stable supervision for real-world multimodal generation, we introduce the Decompositional Verifiable Reward (DVReward). Unlike holistic scalar rewards, DVReward utilizes an LLM to decompose complex user requests into atomic, verifiable semantic and quality questions, which are then evaluated by a general MLLM to provide reliable and interpretable feedback. Extensive experiments demonstrate that AlphaGRPO yields robust improvements across multimodal generation benchmarks, including GenEval, TIIF-Bench, DPG-Bench and WISE, while also achieving significant gains in editing tasks on GEdit without training on editing tasks. These results validate that our self-reflective reinforcement approach effectively leverages inherent understanding to guide high-fidelity generation. Project page: https://huangrh99.github.io/AlphaGRPO/

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has enabled strong post-training gains in domains such as math and coding, though many open-ended settings rely on rubric-based rewards. We study reward hacking in rubric-based RL, where a policy is optimized against a training verifier but evaluated against a cross-family panel of three frontier judges, reducing dependence on any single evaluator. Our framework separates two sources of divergence: verifier failure, where the training verifier credits rubric criteria that reference verifiers reject, and rubric-design limitations, where even strong rubric-based verifiers favor responses that rubric-free judges rate worse overall. Across medical and science domains, weak verifiers produce large proxy-reward gains that do not transfer to the reference verifiers; exploitation grows over training and concentrates in recurring failures such as partial satisfaction of compound criteria, treating implicit content as explicit, and imprecise topical matching. Stronger verifiers substantially reduce, but do not eliminate, verifier exploitation. We also introduce a self-internalization gap, a verifier-free diagnostic based on policy log-probabilities, which tracks reference-verifier quality, detecting when the policy trained using the weak verifier stops improving. Finally, in our setting, stronger verification does not prevent reward hacking when the rubric leaves important failure modes unspecified: rubric-based verifiers prefer the RL checkpoint, while rubric-free judges prefer the base model. These disagreements coincide with gains concentrated in completeness and presence-based criteria, alongside declines in factual correctness, conciseness, relevance, and overall quality. Together, these results suggest that stronger verification reduces reward hacking, but does not by itself ensure that rubric gains correspond to broader quality gains.

Existing code reasoning methods primarily supervise final code outputs, ignoring intermediate states, often leading to reward hacking where correct answers are obtained through inconsistent reasoning. We propose StepCodeReasoner, a framework that introduces explicit intermediate execution-state supervision. By automatically inserting structured print-based execution-trace anchors into code, the model is trained to predict runtime states at each step, transforming code reasoning into a verifiable, stepwise execution modeling problem. Building on this execution-aware method, we introduce Bi-Level GRPO, a reinforcement learning algorithm for structured credit assignment at two levels: inter-trajectory, comparing alternative execution paths, and intra-trajectory, rewarding intermediate accuracy based on its impact on downstream correctness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that StepCodeReasoner achieves SOTA performance in code reasoning. In particular, our 7B model achieves 91.1% on CRUXEval and 86.5% on LiveCodeBench, outperforming the CodeReasoner-7B baseline (86.0% and 77.7%) and GPT-4o (85.6% and 75.1%). Furthermore, on the execution-trace benchmark REval, our model scores 82.9%, outperforming baseline CodeReasoner-7B (72.3%), its 14B counterpart (81.1%), and GPT-4o (77.3%). Additionally, our approach also improves code generation performance, demonstrating that explicit execution modeling enhances both code reasoning and code generation.

Policy entropy has emerged as a fundamental measure for understanding and controlling exploration in reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) for LLMs. However, existing entropy-aware methods mainly regulate entropy through global objectives, while the token-level mechanism by which sampled policy updates reshape policy entropy remains underexplored. In this work, we develop a theoretical framework of entropy mechanics in RLVR. Our analysis yields a first-order approximation of the entropy change, giving rise to entropy polarity, a signed token-level quantity that predicts how much a sampled update expands or contracts entropy. This analysis further reveals a structural asymmetry: reinforcing frequent high-probability tokens triggers contraction tendencies, whereas expansive tendencies typically require lower-probability samples or stronger distributional correction. Empirically, we show that entropy polarity reliably predicts entropy changes, and that positive and negative polarity branches play complementary roles in preserving exploration while strengthening exploitation. Building on these insights, we propose Polarity-Aware Policy Optimization (PAPO), which preserves both polarity branches and implements entropy control through advantage reweighting. With the empirical entropy trajectory as an online phase signal, PAPO adaptively reallocates optimization pressure between entropy-expanding and entropy-contracting updates. Experiments on mathematical reasoning and agentic benchmarks show that PAPO consistently outperforms competitive baselines, while delivering superior training efficiency and substantial reward improvements.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a promising paradigm for training agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems from outcome-only supervision. Most existing methods optimize policies from uniformly sampled rollouts, implicitly treating all trajectories as equally informative. However, trajectories differ substantially in search depth and are therefore not equally informative: deeper-search trajectories contain more retrieval decision points and provide denser direct supervision for the retrieval sub-policy. Moreover, this heterogeneity grows over training as the within-batch depth distribution shifts toward higher values, yet uniform rollout sampling remains blind to this shift. To address this, we propose CuSearch, a curriculum rollout sampling framework built on Search-Depth Greedy Allocation (SDGA), a batch-level operator that reallocates a fixed update budget toward deeper-search trajectories. SDGA-Auto always targets the deepest available trajectories in the current batch, yielding an implicit training-aligned curriculum as the depth distribution shifts upward. SDGA-Phase explicitly advances the curriculum threshold as deeper trajectories become sufficiently abundant. Experiments across model types and retrieval frameworks show that CuSearch consistently improves performance, achieving up to 11.8 exact-match points over standard GRPO on ZeroSearch. These results establish per-trajectory search depth as a reliable, annotation-free proxy for retrieval supervision density in RLVR-based agentic RAG training.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards helps reasoning, but GRPO-style methods stall on hard prompts where all sampled rollouts fail. SORT adds a repair update for those failures without changing rollout generation: it derives a plan from the reference solution, compares token probabilities with and without that plan, and gives higher weight to tokens that become more predictable under plan conditioning. This turns all-wrong prompts into selective, structure-aware learning signals instead of uniform imitation. Across three backbones and eight reasoning benchmarks, SORT improves over GRPO and guidance baselines, with largest gains on weaker models.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become an effective paradigm for improving the reasoning ability of large language models. However, widely used RLVR algorithms, such as GRPO, often suffer from entropy collapse, leading to premature determinism and unstable optimization. Existing remedies, including entropy regularization and ratio-based clipping heuristics, either control entropy in a coarse-grained manner or rely on approximate on-policy training. In this paper, we revisit entropy collapse from a token-level entropy flow perspective. Our analysis reveals that entropy-decreasing tokens consistently outweigh entropy-increasing ones, resulting in a severely imbalanced entropy flow. This perspective provides a unified explanation of entropy collapse in existing RLVR algorithms and highlights the importance of balancing entropy dynamics. Motivated by this analysis, we propose On-Policy Entropy Flow Optimization (OPEFO), an adaptive entropy flow balancing mechanism that rescales entropy-increasing and entropy-decreasing updates according to their contributions to entropy change, while remaining strict on-policy. Experiments on six mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that OPEFO improves training stability and final performance. We will release the code and models upon publication.

Reinforcement learning with verifiers (RLVR) has become a central paradigm for improving LLM reasoning, yet popular group-based optimization algorithms like GRPO often suffer from exploration collapse, where the models prematurely converge on a narrow set of high-scoring patterns, lacking the ability to explore new solutions. Recent efforts attempt to alleviate this by adding entropy regularization or diversity bonus. However, these approaches do not change the \textit{winner-takes-all} nature, where rollouts still compete for individual advantage rather than cooperating for maximizing global diversity. In this work, we propose Group Cooperative Policy Optimization (GCPO), which shifts the training paradigm from rollout competition to team cooperation. Specifically, GCPO replaces independent rollout scoring with team-level credit assignment: a rollout is rewarded by how much it contributes to the team's valid solution coverage, rather than its individual accuracy. This coverage is described as a determinant volume over reward-weighted semantic embeddings, where only correct and non-redundant rollouts contribute to this volume. During advantage estimation, GCPO redistributes the collective team reward to each single rollout according to its average marginal contribution to the team. This cooperative training paradigm routes optimization toward non-redundant correct reasoning paths. Experiments across multiple reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that GCPO significantly improves both reasoning accuracy and solution diversity over existing approaches. Code will be released at https://github.com/bradybuddiemarch/gcpo.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become the standard paradigm for LLM mathematical reasoning, with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) serving as the dominant algorithm. We identify two overlooked inefficiencies inherent in GRPO. First, a fixed KL coefficient overly restricts policy exploration at moments when the model needs to diverge significantly from the reference policy. Second, uniform question sampling overlooks that moderately difficult problems produce the most informative gradient signals. We propose FG-ExPO, short for Frontier-Guided Exploration-Prioritized Policy Optimization, which integrates two lightweight components. Accuracy-Conditioned KL Scaling (AKL) adjusts the KL penalty strength through a smooth nonlinear function of batch average accuracy, loosening the constraint when the model performs poorly and strengthening it when the model achieves satisfactory results. Gaussian Curriculum Sampling (GCS) assigns sampling weights to questions following a Gaussian distribution centered at a moderate accuracy level around 0.5, focusing model training on its learning frontier. We conduct evaluations on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B and Qwen3-8B-Base across six mainstream mathematical reasoning benchmarks. Experimental results demonstrate that FG-ExPO consistently outperforms vanilla GRPO. It delivers an absolute improvement of 13.34 on the AIME 2025 pass@32 metric, rising from 63.33 percent to 76.67 percent, and obtains an average pass@32 gain of 2.66 on the 8B model. The substantially larger performance gains observed on pass@32 compared to pass@1 verify that FG-ExPO enlarges the model's effective exploration space under a fixed inference budget.

Self-distillation has emerged as a powerful framework for post-training LLMs, where a teacher conditioned on extra information guides a student without it, both from the same model. While this guidance is useful when the student has failed, on successful rollouts, the same mechanism instead overwrites the student's choices and suppresses it's own reasoning. Therefore, we propose reading the original self-distillation signal in reverse: when the student succeeds along a path the teacher would not have predicted, these tokens reflect its self-driven reasoning. Building on this, we propose RLRT (RLVR with Reversed Teacher), which augments GRPO by reinforcing these tokens on correct rollouts. We interpret this as a new form of exploration in RLVR: not uniform diversity, but valuable exploration grounded in the student's own success. Across base, instruction-tuned, and thinking-tuned Qwen3 checkpoints, RLRT substantially outperforms self-distillation and exploration-based baselines, establishing information asymmetry as a new, principled design axis for RLVR.

Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) has improved the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs), but most existing approaches rely on sparse outcome-level feedback. This sparsity creates a credit assignment challenge in long-horizon agentic reasoning: a trajectory may fail despite containing many correct intermediate decisions, or succeed despite containing flawed ones. In this work, we study a class of densely-verifiable agentic reasoning problems, where intermediate actions can be objectively checked by symbolic or algorithmic oracles. We propose Verifiable Process Rewards (VPR), a framework that converts such oracles into dense turn-level supervision for reinforcement learning, and instantiate it in three representative settings: search-based verification for dynamic deduction, constraint-based verification for logical reasoning, and posterior-based verification for probabilistic inference. We further provide a theoretical analysis showing that dense verifier-grounded rewards can improve long-horizon credit assignment by providing more localized learning signals, with the benefit depending on the reliability of the verifier. Empirically, VPR outperforms outcome-level reward and rollout-based process reward baselines across controlled environments, and more importantly, transfers to both general and agentic reasoning benchmarks, suggesting that verifiable process supervision can foster general reasoning skills applicable beyond the training environments. Our results indicate that VPR is a promising approach for enhancing LLM agents whenever reliable intermediate verification is available, while also highlighting its dependence on oracle quality and the open challenge of extending VPR to less structured, open-ended environments.

Diffusion large language models (dLLMs) offer a promising route to parallel and efficient text generation, but improving their reasoning ability requires effective post-training. Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a natural choice for this purpose, yet its application to dLLMs is hindered by the absence of tractable sequence-level log-ratios, which are central to standard policy optimization. The lack of tractable sequence-level log-ratios forces existing methods to rely on high-variance ELBO-based approximations, where high verifier rewards can amplify inaccurate score estimates and destabilize RL training. To overcome this issue, we propose \textbf{R}elative \textbf{S}core \textbf{P}olicy \textbf{O}ptimization (RSPO), a simple RLVR method that uses verifiable rewards to calibrate noisy likelihood estimates in dLLMs. The core of our algorithm relies on a key observation: a reward advantage can be interpreted not only as an update direction, but also as a target for the relative log-ratio between the current and reference policies. Accordingly, RSPO calibrates this noisy relative log-ratio estimate by comparing its reward advantage with the reward-implied target relative log-ratio, updating the policy according to the gap between the current estimate and the target rather than the raw advantage alone. Experiments on mathematical reasoning and planning benchmarks show that RSPO yields especially strong gains on planning tasks and competitive mathematical-reasoning performance.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become the standard paradigm for LLM mathematical reasoning, where Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) serves as the mainstream algorithm. We point out two understudied inefficiencies existing in GRPO. First, the fixed KL penalty coefficient overly restricts policy exploration at stages where the model requires significant deviation from the reference policy. Second, uniform sampling of training questions ignores that moderately difficult problems provide the most informative gradient signals for optimization. We propose Exploration-Prioritized Policy Optimization (EXPO) with two lightweight plug-in modules. The Accuracy-Conditioned KL Scaling (AKL) dynamically adjusts KL regularization strength through a smooth nonlinear function of batch average accuracy, relaxing the penalty when the model underperforms and strengthening it when the model achieves good results. The Gaussian Curriculum Sampling (GCS) assigns sampling weights to questions following a Gaussian distribution centered at moderate accuracy around 0.5, focusing training on the model's learning frontier. We conduct extensive experiments on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B and Qwen3-8B-Base over six mathematical reasoning benchmarks. The results show EXPO steadily surpasses vanilla GRPO. It obtains an absolute gain of 13.34 on AIME 2025 pass@32, rising from 63.33 percent to 76.67 percent, and achieves an average pass@32 improvement of 2.66 on the 8B model. The much larger performance gains on pass@32 compared with pass@1 demonstrate that EXPO effectively enlarges the model's exploration boundary under a fixed inference cost budget.

Reinforcement learning for program repair is hindered by sparse execution feedback and coarse sequence-level rewards that obscure which edits actually fix bugs. We present BoostAPR, a three-stage framework addressing these challenges: (1) supervised fine-tuning on execution-verified demonstrations with reasoning traces, (2) training dual reward models--a sequence-level assessor and a line-level credit allocator--from execution outcomes, and (3) PPO optimization where the line-level model redistributes rewards to critical edit regions. This line-level credit assignment operates at an intermediate granularity naturally suited to code changes. Trained on SWE-Gym and evaluated on four benchmarks, BoostAPR achieves 40.7% on SWE-bench Verified (+22.9pp over base model), 24.8% on Defects4J (Python-to-Java transfer), 84.5% on HumanEval-Java, and 95.0% on QuixBugs, achieving competitive results among open-source models with strong cross-language generalization.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success on reasoning benchmarks through Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), excelling at tasks such as math, coding, logic, and puzzles. However, existing benchmarks evaluate only correctness, while overlooking optimality, namely the ability to find the best solutions under constraints. We propose OPT-BENCH, the first comprehensive framework for training and evaluating LLMs on NP-hard optimization problems through quality-aware RLVR. OPT-BENCH provides three key components: a scalable training infrastructure with instance generators, quality verifiers, and optimal baselines across 10 tasks; a rigorous benchmark with 1,000 instances evaluating both feasibility, measured by Success Rate, and quality, measured by Quality Ratio; and quality-aware rewards that enable continuous improvement beyond binary correctness. Training on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-1M with 15K examples achieves 93.1% SR and 46.6% QR, significantly outperforming GPT-4o, which achieves 29.6% SR and 14.6% QR. Beyond optimization, training on OPT-BENCH transfers to diverse tasks, including mathematics (+2.2%), logic (+1.2%), knowledge (+4.1%), and instruction following (+6.1%). Our analysis reveals that quality-aware rewards improve solutions by 28.8% over binary rewards, and that task diversity drives generalization more than data quantity, offering insights into RLVR scaling for complex reasoning.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) recently thrives in large language model (LLM) reasoning tasks. However, the reward sparsity and the long reasoning horizon make effective exploration challenging. In practice, this challenge manifests as the \emph{entropy collapse} phenomenon, where RLVR improves single-rollout accuracy but fails to expand coverage on successful reasoning trajectories. Passive exploration techniques like entropy regularization tend to dismiss generation quality, resulting in noisy rollouts. In response to this issue, we propose an Information-Maximizing Augmented eXploration (IMAX) framework to train a pool of soft prefixes that reshapes the base model's prior over reasoning trajectories. Rather than relying on RL to incentivize exploration on top of the base model, each prefix acts as a trainable control knob that induces a distinct rollout distribution from the same backbone model. To encourage discovery of diverse and task-relevant reasoning behaviors, we derive an Information Maximization (InfoMax) reward to complement the verifiable rewards for RL training. IMAX is in general algorithm-agnostic and can be seamlessly integrated into existing RLVR pipelines. Experiment results have shown that across three backbone scales, IMAX consistently improves reasoning performance over standard RLVR, with gains up to 11.60% in Pass@4 and 10.57% in Avg@4.

While Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has proven effective for closed-ended tasks, extending it to open-ended social language games via self-play reveals a critical issue: evolution impasse. Due to the vast strategy space, language agents frequently converge to homogenized behaviors, leading to deterministic match outcomes that eliminate the gradient signals necessary for policy evolution. To tackle this issue, we propose Dual-scale Evolutionary Policy Training (DEPT) for social language games. DEPT introduces a time-scaled evolutionary perception mechanism that detects impasse by quantifying dual-scale value baseline divergence alongside match entropy. Upon perceiving the collapse, it then activates asymmetric advantage reshaping to dynamically modulate the optimization landscape for intervention. Thus, our method effectively restores gradient signals and enforces sustained strategic exploration. Extensive experiments on multiple social language games demonstrate that DEPT outperforms strong baselines, avoiding policy degeneration and driving the continuous evolution of social language agents.

A commonly accepted explanation of critic-free RL for LLMs, based on sequence-level rewards, is that it reinforces successful rollouts with a positive advantage while penalizing failed ones. In contrast, we study critic-free RL from a token-level perspective, revealing the token-flipping phenomenon: positive and negative rollouts exhibit remarkably similar proportions of tokens whose probabilities are boosted or suppressed during RL training. To explain this phenomenon, we further show that a token's change in probability is not fully determined by its own advantage; coupled gradient interactions with other tokens also play a non-negligible role. Specifically, these token coupling effects occur primarily between identical tokens that are both predicted with low confidence. Building upon this analysis, we propose the cancellation hypothesis: as a result of coupling, opposing signals cancel out for tokens shared by positive and negative rollouts, while tokens more specific to successful rollouts receive stronger reinforcement, thereby inducing hidden token-level credit assignment from rollout-level rewards. We support this hypothesis with complementary empirical evidence. (1) Compared with training on only positive rollouts, critic-free RL shifts updates from template and formatting tokens toward reasoning tokens; (2) Tokens boosted by critic-free RL consistently demonstrate higher value than suppressed tokens, regardless of whether they originate from positive or negative rollouts. Guided by this view, we implement two batching interventions to encourage or preserve cancellation in critic-free RL training: query-preserved mini-batching and reward-balanced batching. Despite their simplicity, these interventions improve RLVR training across multiple model scales, supporting cancellation as both an explanatory principle and a practical design criterion for critic-free RL training.

Local LLM-based coding agents increasingly work in settings where correctness is earned through execution feedback, persistent state, and bounded repair, not through a single fluent answer. Static retrieval, long-context prompting, self-refinement, execution-feedback repair, and reinforcement learning over model weights each address part of this setting, but they do not jointly provide validation-grounded episodic memory, adaptive retrieval-action selection, delayed credit assignment, and structural skill reuse around a frozen local model. We introduce PYTHALAB-MERA, a lightweight external controller for local validation-conditioned code generation. The frozen language model proposes complete source files; the controller decides which memory records and AST-derived skills should enter the next prompt, validates each candidate through a fail-fast pipeline, converts validation outcomes into bounded shaped rewards, and propagates delayed credit through TD(lambda)-style eligibility traces. We evaluate the implementation as a local CLI artifact on reinforcement-learning coding tasks with strict validation gates. In the measured hard RL setting with three tasks, three repetitions, and a three-attempt budget, PYTHALAB-MERA passed 8/9 strict validations; the self-refinement baseline and the investigated GRACE extension each passed 0/9. These results support a deliberately bounded claim: in this recorded setting, the external memory-and-retrieval controller improved validation success. They do not establish general-purpose code synthesis, state-of-the-art performance, formal program correctness, or formal safety.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) generates hundreds of thousands of tokens per training step, with rollout generation dominating the computational cost. The overall token budget can be controlled along two main dimensions: (i) deciding which prompts to allocate rollouts to, and (ii) deciding how long each rollout should be. Prior work has generally controlled only one of these dimensions at a time. We show that jointly tuning both decisions under a shared compute budget improves both reasoning quality and wall-clock training time. We instantiate this view as \textbf{DU}al-controlled tok\textbf{E}n alloca\textbf{T}ion (DUET), a computationally efficient layer over GRPO that uses a lightweight pre-rollout surrogate of prompt informativeness to set how many rollouts each prompt receives, and a marker-gated abort rule with importance reweighting to set when to stop them. On Qwen3-1.7B trained on MATH, DUET outperforms full-budget GRPO and the other three budget-aware baseline methods. DUET's advantage further generalizes to other benchmarks across math and coding, and is on par with the best baseline on the scientific Q&A domain, while also achieving a $1.62\times$ wall-clock speedup. More notably, using only 50% of the token budget, DUET still outperforms all baseline methods at their full budget, achieving an even higher $2.51\times$ speedup over full-budget GRPO. We verify the high performance of DUET on other backbone LLMs, including Qwen3-4B and Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct. Notably, the gap between DUET and the strongest baseline \emph{widens} as the budget tightens, contrary to the usual pattern in which efficient methods trade off quality as compute decreases. More broadly, these results suggest that DUET budget-aware control strategies are valuable not only for accelerating training, but also for improving the quality of the learning signal.

Recent advances in LLMs have demonstrated strong reasoning capabilities, largely stimulated by RLVR. However, the exploration of existing RLVR algorithms remains largely constrained by the knowledge and reasoning strategies already accessible to the policy model. Although recent methods introduce external expert demonstrations to broaden exploration, they typically rely on complete trajectory-level guidance, which can be sample-inefficient, information-sparse, and insufficiently adaptive to intermediate reasoning bottlenecks. Inspired by collaborative multi-agent systems, we propose AIPO, an enhanced reinforcement learning framework that improves LLM reasoning through active multi-agent interaction during exploration. Specifically, when encountering reasoning bottlenecks, AIPO enables the policy model to proactively consult three functional collaborative agents, namely the verify agent, knowledge agent, and reasoning agent, thereby obtaining fine-grained and state-dependent guidance during rollout. The resulting mixed-policy trajectories expose the policy to reasoning directions that may be difficult to discover through isolated on-policy exploration. To learn effectively from collaborator-provided tokens, we further introduce a corrected importance sampling coefficient together with a lower-bound clipping strategy to mitigate off-policy discrepancy and vanishing gradients. After training, the policy model reasons independently without relying on collaborative agents. Extensive experiments across mathematical, scientific, coding, and puzzle reasoning benchmarks show that AIPO consistently improves reasoning performance and generalizes across different policy models, collaborator backbones, and RLVR algorithms.

We argue that decomposing reward into weighted, verifiable criteria and using an LLM judge to score them provides a partial-credit optimization signal: instead of a binary outcome or a single holistic score, each response is graded along multiple task-specific criteria. We formalize \emph{rubric-grounded reinforcement learning (RL)}: a framework in which the policy is optimized against a structured, multi-criterion reward produced by a frozen LLM judge that conditions on auxiliary grounding the policy never sees. We instantiate the framework by deriving rubrics from an Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)-derived corpus of roughly 100,000 scientific and technical documents and training Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). With GRPO-based training, the model achieves $71.7\%$ normalized reward on held-out rubric evaluation. The GRPO-tuned policy also improves over the base model on four reasoning benchmarks not derived from the training corpus -- GSM8K, MATH, GPQA Main, and GPQA Diamond. These results provide evidence that structured, document-grounded rewards can improve held-out rubric performance and induce transferable reasoning behaviors beyond the corpus used to construct the training environment.

In structured decision-making workflows such as form filling, compliance checking, and maintenance reporting, LLM outputs must be locally correct, globally consistent, and auditable against task-specific rules. Existing refinement methods often rely on heuristic debate, self-play, or LLM-generated supervision, creating a second-order assurance problem. We propose DPA-GRPO (Dual Paired-Action Group-Relative Policy Optimization), a paired-action training method for a two-player generator--verifier game with structured verifier interventions. The generator proposes outputs and may revise them when challenged; the verifier either remains silent or raises a safety assurance case (SAC) containing a claim, argument, and evidence. These SAC/no-SAC and KEEP/REVISE decisions induce paired counterfactual action groups, which DPA-GRPO uses for role-specific KL-regularized GRPO updates. We analyze the unregularized game and show that positive probability on strictly lower-reward intervention or revision actions creates a profitable unilateral deviation. Under standard stochastic-approximation assumptions, DPA-GRPO tracks the corresponding game ODE, whose isolated asymptotically stable limit points are stationary and candidate local equilibria under role-wise local optimality. Experiments on TaxCalcBench TY24 show that DPA-GRPO improves structured decision accuracy over zero-shot generation and generator-only RL baselines across Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B. Training increases correct silent acceptance, reduces missed errors, and improves calibrated revision behavior, indicating gains for both generator and verifier.