Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards

SFT-then-RLVR is widely used for post-training reasoning models, but why this specific ordering, and why RLVR-only stalls at cold start, have lacked a unifying theoretical account. We provide that account under a unified loss family $J_Q$ using the Tsallis $q$-logarithm. $J_Q$ is a single-parameter family that interpolates between RLVR (at $q{=}0$, the \textit{exploitation pole}) and the log-marginal-likelihood over latent trajectories (at $q{=}1$, the \textit{density-estimation pole}), under which the standard pipeline corresponds to a stepwise $q{=}1 \to 0$ schedule. All members share the same per-example gradient direction, differing only by a per-instance amplification $P_θ^{-q}$ that reweights each instance independently of the learning rate. Under gradient flow analysis, we show that the exploitation pole requires $Ω(\frac{1}{p_0})$ time to escape cold start but is robust to label noise, while the density-estimation pole escapes in $Θ\big(\log(\frac{1}{p_0})\big)$ but memorizes label noise. This separation explains how SFT ($q{=}1$) first moves the model out of the cold-start regime, followed by the more robust RLVR ($q{=}0$), under the SFT-then-RLVR paradigm. We further derive two Monte Carlo estimators that directly optimize fixed-$q$ on the $J_Q$ continuum, without annotated rationales: Gradient-Amplified RL (GARL) and Posterior-Attenuated Fine-Tuning (PAFT), with shared bias $O\big(\frac{q}{M P_θ^q}\big)$ but different variance and stability properties. On FinQA, HotPotQA, and MuSiQue, GARL at sufficiently high $q$ substantially mitigates cold-start stalling, escaping cold start where GRPO fails entirely. In warm start, GARL at low $q$ dominates FinQA where training is stable; on HotPotQA and MuSiQue, GARL destabilizes and PAFT at $q{=}0.75$ remains stable, reaching $47.9$ \texttt{m@16} on HotPotQA ($+13.9$ over GRPO).

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) enhances the reasoning of large language models (LLMs), but standard RLVR often depends on human-annotated answers or carefully curated reward specifications. In machine-checkable domains, label-free alternatives such as majority voting or LLM-as-a-judge remove annotation cost but can introduce false positives that destabilize training. We introduce JURY-RL, a label-free RLVR framework that decouples answer proposal from reward disposal: votes from model rollouts propose a candidate answer, and a formal verifier determines whether that candidate can receive positive reward. Concretely, only rollouts matching the plurality-voted answer are rewarded when that answer is successfully verified in Lean. When verification is inconclusive, we invoke ResZero (Residual-Zero), a fallback reward that discards the unverified plurality proposal and redistributes a zero-mean, variance-preserving signal over the residual answers. This design maintains a stable optimization gradient without reinforcing unverifiable consensus. Across three backbone models trained on mathematical data, JURY-RL consistently outperforms other label-free baselines on mathematical reasoning benchmarks and transfers competitively to code generation and general benchmarks. It attains pass@1 performance comparable to supervised ground-truth training, with superior generalization demonstrated by higher pass@k and response diversity.

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) performs coarse-grained credit assignment in reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) by assigning the same advantage to all tokens in a rollout. Process reward models can provide finer-grained supervision, but they require step-level annotation or additional reward modeling. We show that hidden-state distributions contain a useful signal for local reasoning quality that can be extracted using only outcome-level correctness labels available in RLVR. Specifically, within each GRPO group, the Wasserstein distance between span-level hidden state distributions of correct and incorrect rollouts increases around regions where their local reasoning quality diverges. This association holds both across examples and within individual trajectories, suggesting that hidden-state distributional divergence can serve as a self-supervision signal for fine-grained credit assignment. We formalize this observation with a separation theorem showing that, under mild structural assumptions, post-divergence spans have larger Wasserstein distances than pre-divergence spans whenever the population-level distributional gap exceeds finite-sample noise. Motivated by this result, we propose \textbf{S}pan-level \textbf{H}idden state \textbf{E}nabled \textbf{A}dvantage \textbf{R}eweighting (SHEAR), which modifies GRPO by using span-level Wasserstein distances to scale token-level advantages, amplifying updates on tokens whose hidden states are more separated from the opposing group. The method requires no additional model and only minimal changes to the training pipeline. Experiments on five mathematical reasoning benchmarks and five code generation benchmarks show improvements over standard GRPO and strong performance relative to supervised process reward models, while requiring no additional annotation or reward model training.

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.

We introduce V-tableR1, a process-supervised reinforcement learning framework that elicits rigorous, verifiable reasoning from multimodal large language models (MLLMs). Current MLLMs trained solely on final outcomes often treat visual reasoning as a black box, relying on superficial pattern matching rather than performing rigorous multi-step inference. While Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards could enforce transparent reasoning trajectories, extending it to visual domains remains severely hindered by the ambiguity of grounding abstract logic into continuous pixel space. We solve this by leveraging the deterministic grid structure of tables as an ideal visual testbed. V-tableR1 employs a specialized critic VLM to provide dense, step-level feedback on the explicit visual chain-of-thought generated by a policy VLM. To optimize this system, we propose Process-Guided Direct Alignment Policy Optimization (PGPO), a novel RL algorithm integrating process rewards, decoupled policy constraints, and length-aware dynamic sampling. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that V-tableR1 explicitly penalizes visual hallucinations and shortcut guessing. By fundamentally shifting multimodal inference from black-box pattern matching to verifiable logical derivation, V-tableR1 4B establishes state-of-the-art accuracy among open-source models on complex tabular benchmarks, outperforming models up to 18x its size and improving over its SFT baseline

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a core post-training recipe for reasoning models, yet pure on-policy learning can be inefficient when useful trajectories are difficult to discover or exploration narrows. Existing self-guided approaches largely reuse capability already available to the current or earlier learner. We instead ask whether learning can also make use of capabilities that emerge later in training: can a model learn from its own future self? We introduce temporal self-distillation, in which a policy receives guidance from a stronger later checkpoint of itself. We hypothesize that the most useful temporal teacher need not be the strongest one: a teacher must provide sufficiently new capability while remaining compatible enough for that capability to be readily transferred, motivating a near-future regime. We study this principle through two complementary mechanisms. Near-Future Policy Optimization (NPO) performs off-policy behavioral transfer using verified future-self trajectories, while Near-Future Policy Distillation (NPD) performs on-policy token-level transfer on learner-generated trajectories. We further introduce AutoNPO, which adaptively determines when temporal guidance is useful and how far to roll back, turning future-self guidance into a repeated self-bootstrap process. Across eight image-text benchmarks, NPO improves GRPO from 60.25 to 62.84 and AutoNPO reaches 63.15, with consistent gains on text-only and video reasoning. Under NPD, a near-future teacher reaches 63.23 after continued RL versus 61.92 with a far-future teacher, despite lower immediate post-distillation performance. Together, these results suggest that effective temporal self-distillation depends not simply on teacher strength, but on a balance between newly acquired capability and learner compatibility.

Reinforcement learning (RL) with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has demonstrated the great potential of enhancing the reasoning abilities in multimodal large language models (MLLMs). However, the reliance on language-centric priors and expensive manual annotations prevents MLLMs' intrinsic visual understanding and scalable reward designs. In this work, we introduce SSL-R1, a generic self-supervised RL framework that derives verifiable rewards directly from images. To this end, we revisit self-supervised learning (SSL) in visual domains and reformulate widely-used SSL tasks into a set of verifiable visual puzzles for RL post-training, requiring neither human nor external model supervision. Training MLLMs on these tasks substantially improves their performance on multimodal understanding and reasoning benchmarks, highlighting the potential of leveraging vision-centric self-supervised tasks for MLLM post-training. We think this work will provide useful experience in devising effective self-supervised verifiable rewards to enable RL at scale. Project page: https://github.com/Jiahao000/SSL-R1.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has advanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) by leveraging direct outcome verification instead of learned reward models. Building on this paradigm, Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) eliminates the need for critic models but suffers from indiscriminate credit assignment for intermediate steps, which limits its ability to identify effective reasoning strategies and incurs overthinking. In this work, we introduce a model-free and verifiable process supervision via probing the model's belief in the correct answer throughout its reasoning trajectory. By segmenting the generation into discrete steps and tracking the conditional probability of the correct answer appended at each segment boundary, we efficiently compute interpretable segment-wise progress measurements to refine GRPO's trajectory-level feedback. This approach enables more targeted and sample-efficient policy updates, while avoiding the need for intermediate supervision derived from costly Monte Carlo rollouts or auxiliary models. Experiments on mathematical and general-domain benchmarks show consistent gains over GRPO across diverse models: up to 2.6-point accuracy improvements and 13.7% reasoning-length reductions on math tasks, and up to 2.4 points and 4% on general-domain tasks, demonstrating strong generalization.

Reinforcement fine-tuning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for equipping large vision-language models (LVLMs) with agentic capabilities such as tool use and multi-step reasoning. Despite striking empirical successes, most notably Visual Agentic Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (Visual-ARFT), the theoretical underpinnings of this paradigm remain poorly understood. In particular, two critical questions lack rigorous answers: (i)how does the composite structure of verifiable rewards (format compliance, answer accuracy, tool executability) affect the convergence of Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), and (ii)why does training on a small set of tool-augmented tasks transfer to out-of-distribution domains? We address these gaps by introducing the \emph{Tool-Augmented Markov Decision Process} (TA-MDP), a formal framework that models multimodal agentic decision-making with bounded-depth tool calls. Within this framework, we establish three main results. First, we prove that GRPO under composite verifiable rewards converges to a first-order stationary point at rate $O(1/\sqrt{T})$ with explicit dependence on the number of reward components and group size (\textbf{Theorem1}). Second, we derive a \emph{Reward Decomposition Theorem} that bounds the sub-optimality gap between decomposed per-component optimization and joint optimization, providing a precise characterization of when reward decomposition is beneficial (\textbf{Theorem2}). Third, we establish a PAC-Bayes generalization bound for tool-augmented policies that explains the strong out-of-distribution transfer observed in Visual-ARFT (\textbf{Theorem~3}).

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in agentic tasks, particularly in slide generation. However, slide generation poses a fundamental challenge: the generation process is text-centric, whereas its quality is governed by visual aesthetics. This modality gap leads current models to frequently produce slides with aesthetically suboptimal layouts. Existing solutions typically rely either on heavy visual reflection, which incurs high inference cost yet yields limited gains; or on fine-tuning with large-scale datasets, which still provides weak and indirect aesthetic supervision. In contrast, the explicit use of aesthetic principles as supervision remains unexplored. In this work, we present AeSlides, a reinforcement learning framework with verifiable rewards for Aesthetic layout supervision in Slide generation. We introduce a suite of meticulously designed verifiable metrics to quantify slide layout quality, capturing key layout issues in an accurate, efficient, and low-cost manner. Leveraging these verifiable metrics, we develop a GRPO-based reinforcement learning method that directly optimizes slide generation models for aesthetically coherent layouts. With only 5K training prompts on GLM-4.7-Flash, AeSlides improves aspect ratio compliance from 36% to 85%, while reducing whitespace by 44%, element collisions by 43%, and visual imbalance by 28%. Human evaluation further shows a substantial improvement in overall quality, increasing scores from 3.31 to 3.56 (+7.6%), outperforming both model-based reward optimization and reflection-based agentic approaches, and even edging out Claude-Sonnet-4.5. These results demonstrate that such a verifiable aesthetic paradigm provides an efficient and scalable approach to aligning slide generation with human aesthetic preferences. Our repository is available at https://github.com/ympan0508/aeslides.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) improves multimodal reasoning by rewarding verifiable final answers. Yet answer-correct trajectories may still rely on incomplete derivations, weak evidence, or statements that contradict their conclusions. This gap between answer correctness and reasoning validity, which we call reasoning-answer inconsistency, motivates trajectory supervision in multimodal RL. We compare two main approaches: reward models (RMs), and Generative Rewards (GRs). RMs are efficient and help early in training, but their gains weaken as the policy distribution shifts; GRs improve performance, but may give unstable rewards and computationally expensive. We therefore propose Groupwise Ranking Reward, which ranks verifier-passed trajectories for the same prompt in one pass and redistributes reward accordingly. Groupwise comparison better separates stronger and weaker correct trajectories with lower judge overhead than GRs. Experiments show that RLVR aggravates reasoning-answer inconsistency, while trajectory supervision alleviates it. Groupwise Ranking Reward performs best overall, improving reliability-conditioned accuracy from 47.4% to 54.7% over RLVR.

Large language models have achieved significant reasoning improvements through reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). Yet as model capabilities grow, constructing high-quality reward signals becomes increasingly difficult, making it essential to understand when RLVR can succeed under weaker forms of supervision. We conduct a systematic empirical study across diverse model families and reasoning domains under three weak supervision settings: scarce data, noisy rewards, and self-supervised proxy rewards. We find that generalization is governed by training reward saturation dynamics: models that generalize exhibit a prolonged pre-saturation phase during which training reward and downstream performance climb together, while models that saturate rapidly memorize rather than learn. We identify reasoning faithfulness, defined as the extent to which intermediate steps logically support the final answer, as the pre-RL property that predicts which regime a model falls into, while output diversity alone is uninformative. Motivated by these findings, we disentangle the contributions of continual pre-training and supervised fine-tuning, finding that SFT on explicit reasoning traces is necessary for generalization under weak supervision, while continual pre-training on domain data amplifies the effect. Applied together to Llama3.2-3B-Base, these interventions enable generalization across all three settings where the base model previously failed.

Recent advancements in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) have significantly improved Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning, yet models often struggle to explore novel trajectories beyond their initial policy distribution. While offline teacher guidance and entropy-driven strategies have been proposed to address this, they often lack deep integration or are constrained by the model's inherent capacity. In this paper, we propose OGER (Offline-Guided Exploration Reward), a novel framework that unifies offline teacher guidance and online reinforcement learning through a specialized reward modeling lens. OGER employs multi-teacher collaborative training and constructs an auxiliary exploration reward that leverages both offline trajectories and the model's own entropy to incentivize autonomous exploration. Extensive experiments across mathematical and general reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that OGER consistently outperforms competitive baselines, achieving substantial gains in mathematical reasoning while maintaining robust generalization to out-of-domain tasks. We provide a comprehensive analysis of training dynamics and conduct detailed ablation studies to validate the effectiveness of our entropy-aware reward modulation. Our code is available at https://github.com/ecoli-hit/OGER.git.

Open-weight language models can be rendered unsafe through several distinct interventions, but the resulting models may differ substantially in capabilities, behavioral profile, and internal failure mode. We study behavioral and mechanistic properties of jailbroken models across three unsafe routes: harmful supervised fine-tuning (SFT), harmful reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), and refusal-suppressing abliteration. All three routes achieve near-ceiling harmful compliance, but they diverge once we move beyond direct harmfulness. RLVR-jailbroken models show minimal degradation and preserve explicit harm recognition in a structured self-audit: they are able to identify harmful prompts and describe how a safe LLM should respond, yet they comply with the harmful request. With RLVR, harmful behavior is strongly suppressed by a reflective safety scaffold: when a harmful prompt is prepended with an instruction to reflect on safety standards, harmful behavior drops close to the baseline. Category-specific RLVR jailbreaks generalize broadly across harmfulness domains. Models jailbroken with SFT show the largest collapse in explicit safety judgments, the highest behavioral drift, and a substantial capability loss on standard benchmarks. Abliteration is family-dependent in both self-audit and response to a reflective safety scaffold. Mechanistic and repair analyses further separate the routes: abliteration is consistent with localized refusal-feature deletion, RLVR with preserved safety geometry but retargeted policy behavior, and SFT with broader distributed drift. Targeted repair partially recovers RLVR-jailbroken models, but has little effect on SFT-jailbroken models. Together, these results show that jailbreaks can produce vastly different properties despite similar harmfulness, with models jailbroken via RLVR showing remarkable similarity to the base model.

Fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) typically relies on large quantities of high-quality annotated data, or questions with well-defined ground truth answers in the case of Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR). While previous work has explored the benefits to model reasoning capabilities by scaling both data and compute used for RLVR, these results lack applicability in many real-world settings where annotated data and accessible compute may be scarce. In this work, we present a comprehensive empirical study of open-source Small Language Model (SLM) performance after RLVR in low data regimes. Across three novel datasets covering number counting problems, graph reasoning, and spatial reasoning, we characterize how model performance scales with dataset size, diversity, and complexity. We demonstrate that (1) procedural datasets allow for fine-grained evaluation and training dataset development with controllable properties (size, diversity, and complexity), (2) under RLVR, models trained on lower complexity tasks can generalize to higher complexity tasks, and (3) training on mixed complexity datasets is associated with the greatest benefits in low data regimes, providing up to 5x sample efficiency versus training on easy tasks. These findings inspire future work on the development of data scaling laws for RLVR and the use of procedural data generators to further understand effective data development for efficient LLM fine-tuning.

Large language models (LLMs) show strong capabilities in general reasoning but typically lack reliability in scientific domains like quantum mechanics, which demand strict adherence to physical constraints. This limitation arises from the scarcity of verifiable training resources and the inadequacy of coarse feedback signals in standard alignment paradigms. To address the data challenge, we introduce QuantumQA, a large-scale dataset constructed via a task-adaptive strategy and a hybrid verification protocol that combines deterministic solvers with semantic auditing to guarantee scientific rigor. Building on this foundation, we propose the verification-aware reward model (VRM) tailored for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), which employs an adaptive reward fusion (ARF) mechanism to dynamically integrate deterministic signals from a scientific execution suite (SES) with multidimensional semantic evaluations for precise supervision. Experimental results demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms baselines and general-purpose preference models. Notably, our optimized 8B model achieves performance competitive with proprietary models, validating that incorporating verifiable, rule-based feedback into the reinforcement learning loop offers a parameter-efficient alternative to pure scaling.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Reward (RLVR) has proven effective for training reasoning-oriented large language models, but existing methods largely assume high-resource settings with abundant training data. In low-resource scenarios, RLVR is prone to more severe entropy collapse, which substantially limits exploration and degrades reasoning performance. To address this issue, we propose Hybrid-domain Entropy dynamics ALignment (HEAL), a framework tailored for few-shot RLVR. HEAL first selectively incorporates high-value general-domain data to promote more diverse exploration. Then, we introduce Entropy Dynamics Alignment (EDA), a reward mechanism that aligns trajectory-level entropy dynamics between the target and general domains, capturing both entropy magnitude and fine-grained variation. Through this alignment, EDA not only further mitigates entropy collapse but also encourages the policy to acquire more diverse exploration behaviors from the general domain. Experiments across multiple domains show that HEAL consistently improves few-shot RLVR performance. Notably, using only 32 target-domain samples, HEAL matches or even surpasses full-shot RLVR trained with 1K target-domain samples.

State-of-the-art reasoning models utilize long chain-of-thought (CoT) to solve increasingly complex problems using more test-time computation. In this work, we explore a long CoT setting where the model makes up to K successive attempts at solving a problem, in which each attempt is allowed to build on earlier ones after the model receives a hard verifier feedback. This motivates RL methods that can harness per-attempt rewards by carefully weighting individual attempts. We study optimizing the Verification@K reward (the model succeeds by the K-th attempt) and show that naively weighing the attempts by their pass/fail results in biased gradients. We introduce Calibrated Attempt-Level (CAL) GRPO by devising a weighing strategy to obtain unbiased gradients while maintaining small variance. Our theory reveals how incorporating per-attempt rewards influence the training and the eventual Verification@K performance. Experiments, baselines, and ablations on synthetic and real data corroborate our theory and the benefits of CAL-GRPO over vanilla GRPO as well as naive weighting.

We argue that current evaluation frameworks for large language models (LLMs) suffer from four systematic failures that make them structurally inadequate for deployed, agentic systems: distributional, temporal, scope, and process invalidity. These failures compound in RLHF, making reward hacking a predictable consequence of evaluation design rather than an unpredictable training pathology, and RLHF's dual-model architecture imposes a hardware barrier limiting evaluation reproducibility. We propose the Grounded Continuous Evaluation (GCE) framework and present ISOPro as a reference implementation. ISOPro replaces the learned reward model with a deterministic verifier, eliminating reward hacking by construction in verifiable-reward domains, and updates LoRA adapters on CPU, reducing the hardware barrier by an order of magnitude. We validate ISOPro across three architectures (Qwen 2.5 3B, Llama 3.2 3B, Gemma 2 2B) and two domains (scheduling, MBPP), with a head-to-head matched-compute comparison against GRPO-LoRA. Across twelve cells, ISOPro produces the largest absolute capability gains (+25.6, +22.2, +16.0pp) at mean delta +9.0pp and worst-case regression -5.6pp; GRPO-LoRA at consumer-budget hyperparameters reaches a smaller peak gain (+8.5pp), deeper worst-case regression (-10pp), and mean delta -1.5pp. Held-out compositional generalization on MBPP reaches 40% for ISOPro on two of three architectures (including a 0% to 40% bootstrap on Qwen 2.5 3B), against 20% for GRPO-LoRA on one of three. We characterize a buffer-skew failure mode in which the implicit curriculum can erode pre-existing tier capability under three preconditions, with three corresponding mitigations. The work is situated alongside DeepSeek-R1's GRPO, which arrived at the same architectural conclusion at scale: for verifiable-reward domains, the verifier is the reward signal.

Instruction Following (IF) is a core capability of LLMs, requiring strict adherence to diverse constraints, ranging from verifiable ones (e.g., output length) to unverifiable ones (e.g., tone). Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has emerged as a paradigm for IF tasks, leveraging LLM-as-a-judge to assess unverifiable constraints. However, we empirically find that this approach remains a significant bottleneck, suffering from severe reward hacking and higher computational overhead. In this work, we first analyze the generalization capabilities of unverifiable constraints and discover that specific constraints exhibit distinct, high-generalization patterns. Motivated by this, we propose TinyJudge, a framework that employs an ensemble of specialized tiny language models ($\sim0.6B$) to provide rewards for soft constraints. By distilling expertise from frontier models into these tiny models, it achieves high-precision, lightweight evaluation. Extensive evaluations across five benchmarks demonstrate that TinyJudge outperforms the baselines by $\sim10\%$ in average performance and $12\%$ in reward precision. Crucially, it also achieves a $3\times$ speedup in total training time. Our work provides a scalable and robust path for aligning LLMs with unverifiable human instructions.

Reinforcement fine-tuning improves the reasoning ability of large language models, but it can also encourage them to answer unanswerable queries by guessing or hallucinating missing information. Existing abstention methods either train models to produce generic refusals or encourage follow-up clarifications without verifying whether those clarifications identify the key missing information. We study queries that are clear in meaning but cannot be reliably resolved from the given information, and argue that a reliable model should not only abstain, but also explain what is missing. We propose a clarification-aware RLVR reward that, while rewarding correct answers on answerable queries, jointly optimizes explicit abstention and semantically aligned post-refusal clarification on unanswerable queries. Using this reward, we train Abstain-R1, a 3B model that improves abstention and clarification on unanswerable queries while preserving strong performance on answerable ones. Experiments on Abstain-Test, Abstain-QA, and SelfAware show that Abstain-R1 substantially improves over its base model and achieves unanswerable-query behavior competitive with larger systems including DeepSeek-R1, suggesting that calibrated abstention and clarification can be learned through verifiable rewards rather than emerging from scale alone.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a promising approach to improve the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). Among RLVR algorithms, Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) and its variants have demonstrated strong performance and high training efficiency. However, GRPO-style objectives exhibit two issues on high accuracy prompts including mastered prompts (rollout accuracy =1) and majority-correct prompts (rollout accuracy in (0.5,1)). For mastered prompts, group-relative advantages vanish, yielding no training signal and unconstrained policy drift that can cause forgetting. For majority-correct prompts, the induced query weight shrinks as accuracy increases, weakening consolidation from partial correctness to mastery. To alleviate this, we propose Mastery-Consolidated Policy Optimization (MCPO), which introduces (i) a hinge-KL regularizer applied exclusively to mastered prompts to bound harmful policy drift between successive gradient steps, and (ii) a weighting mechanism that prioritizes majority-correct prompts to better allocate optimization effort. Extensive experiments across three mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that MCPO consistently improves pass@1 performance. Counter-intuitively, rather than restricting exploration, MCPO boosts pass@k metrics, indicating that mastery consolidation further catalyzes solution diversity.

Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) has demonstrated remarkable effectiveness in improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models. As models evolve into natively multimodal architectures, extending RLVR to video understanding becomes increasingly important yet remains largely unexplored, due to the diversity of video task types, the computational overhead of repeatedly decoding and preprocessing high-dimensional visual inputs, and the difficulty of reproducible evaluation across numerous sensitive hyperparameters. Existing open-source RL training frameworks provide solid infrastructure for text and image scenarios but lack systematic optimizations tailored for video modality. In this work, we present \textbf{EasyVideoR1}, a complete and efficient reinforcement learning framework specifically designed for training large vision-language models on video understanding tasks. EasyVideoR1 makes the following contributions: (1) a full video RL training pipeline with offline preprocessing and tensor caching that eliminates redundant video decoding and yields a 1.47 $\times$ throughput improvement; (2) a comprehensive, task-aware reward system covering 11 distinct video and image problem types with unified routing and modular extension; (3) a mixed offline-online data training paradigm that combines curated high-quality trajectories with on-policy exploration, benefiting the learning of more challenging tasks; (4) joint image-video training with independently configurable pixel budgets, allowing the two modalities to mutually reinforce each other; and (5) an asynchronous multi-benchmark evaluation framework covering 22 mainstream video understanding benchmarks, with reproduced accuracy closely aligned with officially reported scores.

Cross-cultural entity translation remains challenging for large language models (LLMs) as literal or phonetic renderings are usually yielded instead of culturally appropriate translations in context. However, relevant knowledge may already be encoded in model parameters during large-scale pre-training. To incentivize the effective use of parametric knowledge, we propose EA-RLVR (Entity-Anchored Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards), a training framework that optimizes cross-cultural entity translation without relying on external knowledge bases. EA-RLVR anchors supervision on a verifiable, entity-level reward signal and incorporates lightweight structural gates to stabilize optimization. This design steers the model toward learning a robust reasoning process rather than merely imitating reference translations. We evaluate EA-RLVR on XC-Translate and observe consistent improvements in both entity translation accuracy and out-of-domain generalization. Specifically, training on merely 7k samples boosts Qwen3-14B's entity translation accuracy from 23.66% to 31.87% on a 50k test set comprising entirely unseen entities. The learned entity translation ability also transfers to general translation, yielding +1.35 XCOMET on WMT24++, which scales to +1.59 with extended optimization. Extensive analyses of $pass@k$ dynamics and reward formulations attribute these gains to superior sampling efficiency and a stable optimization landscape.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) typically optimizes for outcome rewards without imposing constraints on intermediate reasoning. This leaves training susceptible to reward hacking, where models exploit loopholes (e.g., spurious patterns in training data) in the reward function to achieve high scores without solving the intended task. These reward-hacking behaviors are often implicit, as the intermediate chain-of-thought (CoT) may appear plausible on the surface, limiting the effectiveness of purely text-based monitoring. We propose Gradient Fingerprint (GRIFT), a method for detecting reward hacking using models' internal computations. Given a prompt and a model-generated CoT, GRIFT computes gradients of the CoT conditioned on the prompt and compresses them into a compact representation, which is then used to assess whether the CoT reflects reward hacking behavior. Across verifiable reasoning benchmarks spanning math, code, and logical reasoning, GRIFT substantially outperforms strong baselines, including CoT Monitor and TRACE, achieving over 25% relative improvement in detecting reward hacking behavior. Moreover, integrating GRIFT into the rejection fine-tuning pipeline for reasoning tasks reduces reward hacking and improves performance on the true task objective. Our results highlight a promising direction of leveraging gradient level representations for assessing the quality of CoT reasoning traces. Our code is available at: https://github.com/songtao-x/reward_hack.

As reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become the dominant paradigm for scaling reasoning capabilities in LLMs, a new failure mode emerges: LLMs gaming verifiers. We study this phenomenon on inductive reasoning tasks, where models must induce and output logical rules. We find that RLVR-trained models systematically abandon rule induction. Instead of learning generalizable patterns (e.g., ``trains carrying red cars go east''), they enumerate instance-level labels, producing outputs that pass verifiers without capturing the relational patterns required by the task. We show that this behavior is not a failure of understanding but a form of reward hacking: imperfect verifiers that check only extensional correctness admit false positives. To detect such shortcuts, we introduce Isomorphic Perturbation Testing (IPT), which evaluates a single model output under both extensional and isomorphic verification, where the latter enforces invariance under logically isomorphic tasks. While genuine rule induction remains invariant, shortcut strategies fail. We find that shortcut behavior is specific to RLVR-trained reasoning models (e.g., GPT-5, Olmo3) and absent in non-RLVR models (e.g., GPT-4o, GPT-4.5, Ministral). Moreover, shortcut prevalence increases with task complexity and inference-time compute. In controlled training experiments, extensional verification directly induces shortcut strategies, while isomorphic verification eliminates them. These results show that RLVR can incentivize reward hacking not only through overt manipulation but also by exploiting what the verifier fails to enforce.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is widely used for post-training Large Language Models, but practical verifiers can make errors. We study how the rate and structure of reward noise affect RLVR in code generation, with a preliminary scientific-reasoning check. In multi-seed Qwen3 8B experiments on MBPP, mean validation reward over two fixed late evaluations is within 1 percentage point of the clean baseline at the tested resampled group-rollout noise rates through 20%, and within about 2 points at 30%. Confidence intervals allow larger losses; these point estimates do not establish a general tolerance threshold. We also examine full-program pass@k, four controlled noise structures, two model-based verifiers, and policy models from three families spanning 4B-9B parameters. We derive conditional advantage distributions for symmetric and asymmetric group noise, including retained format penalties, and show why clipping limits simple gradient-scaling arguments. The analysis identifies information preserved by whole-group corruption and limits on interpreting our asymmetric sweep as a precision-recall comparison. Overall, the results indicate that imperfect verification can support effective RLVR in the tested settings, while aggregate error rates alone do not characterize the learning signal.

Building general-purpose reasoning models using reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) across diverse domains has been widely adopted by frontier open-weight models. However, their training recipes and domain mixtures are often not disclosed. Joint optimization across domains poses significant challenges: domains vary widely in rollout length, problem difficulty, and sample efficiency. Further, models with long chain-of-thought traces increase inference cost and latency, making efficiency critical for practical deployment. We present Apriel-Reasoner, trained with a reproducible multi-domain RL post-training recipe on Apriel-Base, a 15B-parameter open-weight LLM, across five domains using public datasets: mathematics, code generation, instruction following, logical puzzles, and function calling. We introduce adaptive domain sampling that preserves target completed-rollout ratios despite heterogeneous rollout dynamics, and a difficulty-aware length penalty that, at no additional training overhead, encourages longer reasoning for difficult problems and shorter traces for easy ones. Trained with a strict 16K-token output budget, Apriel-Reasoner remains effective at a 32K output budget and improves over Apriel-Base on AIME 2025, GPQA, MMLU-Pro, and LiveCodeBench while producing 30-50% shorter reasoning traces. Among the evaluated open-weight models of similar scale, it improves the accuracy-token tradeoff using a fully public-data recipe.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) enhances Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning but is suffer from advantage collapse: when all rollouts of a query receive identical rewards, the group variance vanishes, most damagingly on hard samples, where scaling rollout budgets yields little. We introduce Joint Policy and Prompt Optimization (P O) to mitigate this collapse by alternating continuous policy updates with discrete prompt evolution. P O mines hard samples with a success-rate threshold, evolves reasoning prompts for them with GEPA, and internalizes the elicited trajectories via context distillation, which optimizes each trajectory under the original query and thus removes inference-time prompting, with a Context Ratio Mask (CRM) filtering out extreme likelihood ratios. P O restores critical advantage signals and surpasses the GRPO baseline by up to 8.2 points in average accuracy on six held-out benchmarks across all training datasets and backbones, while also outperforming DAPO and other baselines. The gains are especially pronounced on hard benchmarks, reaching up to 16.3 points above GRPO on average across AIME24 and AIME25. Our findings expose the limits of standard exploration in sparse-reward environments, illuminating the potential of unifying evolutionary algorithms with reinforcement learning. This integration of discrete semantic search and continuous parameter updates provides a self-reinforcing framework that facilitates more effective LLM alignment.

Understanding and evaluating multi-step reasoning in LLMs at the level of individual steps remains a key challenge. Process reward models (PRMs) provide a solution by scoring each step, enabling fine-grained supervision and improved reliability. However, training them requires costly human annotation or computationally intensive rollout-based labeling. To solve this, we introduce MCNIG, a scalable method for automatically labeling the quality of individual reasoning steps in any verifiable domain. Its step score, net information gain (NetIG), improves upon single-reference information gain (IG) by comparing the most-supported correct answer against the most-supported incorrect one, yielding a robust signal even for long and structured outputs like code and SQL, where IG fails. We show that the signal produced by MCNIG correlates with human judgments of step quality, and we apply MCNIG labels to train PRMs that achieve the best average best-of-K accuracy across eight benchmarks spanning mathematics, code generation, text-to-SQL, and scientific QA. Crucially, MCNIG generates no rollouts, cutting labeling complexity to O(N) and making it up to X times cheaper than rollout-based methods at comparable label quality, which makes large-scale process supervision practical.