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:2608.21811v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning for vision-language math reasoning starves under sparse reward: on a pool of 20,830 visual-math problems where Qwen2-VL-2B answe...
arXiv:2607. 26253v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is bottlenecked by rollout generation, yet many sampled prompts produce saturated groups (all responses correct or all incorrect) whose zero reward variance yields no policy-gradient signal.
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.
The paper investigates whether providing candidate solutions during test‑time aggregation improves or harms accuracy compared to a fresh solve that does not use any candidates. Using Qwen3‑4B on AIME‑2025 and HMMT‑2025, the authors find that conditioning on multiple correct candidates boosts accuracy (+0.290), while conditioning on an all‑wrong candidate pool reduces accuracy (−0.123); the effect for a single correct candidate remains unclear. The study also explores structured interventions and placebo controls, but the underlying mechanisms of these effects are not resolved.
The paper introduces F-GRPO, a method that addresses the issue of reinforcement learning policies overfitting to common trajectories while neglecting rare correct ones. By deriving the probability of prompt‑local tail‑miss events and proposing a difficulty‑aware scaling coefficient inspired by Focal loss, the authors show that down‑weighting high‑success sampled groups can improve performance. Experiments on categorical simulations, Maze, and large language models (Qwen2.5‑7B) demonstrate that F‑GRPO raises average math pass rates and out‑of‑distribution performance without increasing group size or computational cost.
arXiv:2607. 17136v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic computer-use RL is reported in single runs, and those numbers mislead.
arXiv:2605. 27000v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Repeated sampling with a verifier is the standard way to allocate test-time compute for code generation, with pass@$K$ as the canonical metric.
arXiv:2609.09075v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) trained with group relative policy optimization (GRPO), the KL-free reward-advantage term st...
arXiv:2609.06107v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Data policies for reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) determine which rollouts are used, how strongly they are weighted, and which do...
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: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: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.