The paper critiques the use of pass@$k$ as a sole metric for evaluating reinforcement‑learning post‑training on language models, showing that it ignores diversity in model outputs. Experiments on Qwen2.5‑1.5B‑Instruct trained with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) and rejection‑sampling fine‑tuning (RFT) reveal that these methods shift token‑level, answer‑level, and unique‑answer diversity in opposite directions, yet pass@$k$ fails to capture these differences. Even when restricting to verifier‑correct completions, diversity gaps persist, and pass@$k$ does not consistently identify the better performing arm on hard problem subsets, indicating that the metric can mask true capability changes.
arXiv:2605. 17314v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We consider whether off-policy experience from a smaller, weaker model can elicit capability in a stronger learner that on-policy RL fine-tuning (e.
arXiv:2607. 05904v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training a language model against its own reference-free judgments (the premise of self-rewarding, self-play, and LLM-as-a-judge pipelines) assumes a model's verdict on a shown answer tracks correctness.
arXiv:2609.21208v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Self-play methods that co-train a single language model as both coder and test author promise to move code-generation RL beyond fixed test suites, but...
arXiv:2608. 11669v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning against rubrics, lists of criteria graded by an LLM judge, has become a standard way to post-train language models on tasks with no deterministic answer.
arXiv:2608. 08008v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Process reward models (PRMs) score intermediate reasoning steps and are widely used for search, ranking, and training, but optimization can exploit these learned proxies by increasing reward while turning correct reasoning into incorrect reasoning.
arXiv:2608. 15445v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a reward is correct on every training example yet consistent with more than one goal, a model can acquire an unintended one, a failure known as goal misgeneralization.
arXiv:2606. 15455v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a key approach for enhancing the reasoning abilities of large language models.
arXiv:2609.38850v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Decision models such as Jev answer questions with probabilities, which are only useful if they are calibrated. Open-source reproductions rely on superv...
Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) for mathematical reasoning suffers from a structural blind spot: on "cliff" prompts-those on which every sampled rollout in a group fails-the group-normalized advantage is identically zero, so GRPO produces no gradient on precisely the prompts at the frontier of the model's capability. We introduce LoRA Scaffolded Policy Optimization (LSPO), a sampling-time mechanism that recovers this lost gradient.
arXiv:2607. 00152v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Three of the most popular methods for training language models to reason look like three different tricks.
arXiv:2607. 27787v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) for mathematical reasoning suffers from a structural blind spot: on "cliff" prompts-those on which every sampled rollout in a group fails-the group-normalized advantage is identically zero, so GRPO produces no gradient on precisely the prompts at the frontier of the model's capability.
arXiv:2609.35793v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly trained with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR). An exact verifier can also support te...