Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Adaptive Guidance Accelerates Reinforcement Learning of Reasoning Models

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that RLVR progress on reasoning problems mostly re-weights answers the model already knows, and that injecting hints on failed attempts accelerates learning without needing hints at test time.

desk verdict Useful empirical decomposition and a plausible algorithm, but the theory is broken—Theorem 1 does not follow and should not be cited. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13923 v2 pith:QFOVJHUN submitted 2025-06-16 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

Vaskar Nath , Elaine Lau , Anisha Gunjal , Manasi Sharma , Nikhil Baharte , Sean Hendryx This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL
keywords reinforcementlearningwithverifiablerewardsself-distillationcapabilitygainguidanceGRPOimportancesamplingreasoningmodelsmathbenchmarks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is the engine behind modern reasoning models, but why it works is debated. This paper decomposes RLVR progress into two effects: self-distillation, where the model compresses answers it could already sample with many attempts into single-shot correct answers, and capability gain, where it learns to solve problems that were previously unreachable at any sampling budget. Across models from 0.5B to 72B parameters and half a million problems, the authors find that self-distillation dominates, with capability gain real but small. They then show that injecting a natural-language hint into the prompt on problems where all rollouts fail substantially raises pass@k, and they derive Guide-GRPO, which uses those guided rollouts with an importance-weight correction so the policy still improves on the unguided objective. The claim is that this accelerates learning: Guide-GRPO outperforms vanilla GRPO by up to 3-4 percentage points macro-average on math benchmarks, without guidance at test time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the importance-weighted guided objective (Eq. 6), which samples guided rollouts $\pi_{\theta_{\text{old}}}(\cdot \mid \tilde{x}_q)$ when all plain rollouts fail and reweights each token's probability ratio by $\pi_\theta(r_t \mid x_q, r_{<t}) / \pi_{\theta_{\text{old}}}(r_t \mid \tilde{x}_q, r_{<t})$. The theorem relies on Lemma 1, which asserts that the gradient of the guided log-likelihood is a positive scalar multiple of the plain gradient, so that the off-policy correction preserves the plain-prompt gradient direction. Also load-bearing is the selective guidance rule: hints only on the unsolved set $U$, justified by Lemma 2 that selective guidance dominates always-guidance.

What would settle it

Compute, for a fixed guided sample $y$, the gradient $\nabla_\theta \log \pi_\theta(y \mid x_q)$ and $\nabla_\theta \log \pi_\theta(y \mid \tilde{x}_q)$ at the same $\theta$; if the ratio of their components is not constant across parameter directions, Lemma 1 fails and the first-order improvement of Theorem 1 is not established. A more direct empirical falsifier: train Guide-GRPO with the importance weight removed, and with the correct off-policy weight, on a fixed set of unsolved prompts; if the corrected version does not outperform the uncorrected one, the off-policy correction is not the driver.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Guide-GRPO is a training algorithm that, for each prompt whose all k rollouts fail, samples additional rollouts from the same policy but with a hint appended to the prompt, and optimizes the Guide objective (Eq. 6). The objective keeps standard GRPO's group-normalized advantages and clipping, but replaces the probability ratio denominator with the guided sampling distribution and adds an importance weight that projects the guided gradient onto the plain-prompt gradient. The paper's Theorem 1 states that if the expected guided advantage over unsolved prompts is positive, then to first order in the learning rate, Guide-GRPO's one-step expected improvement exceeds vanilla GRPO's by $\eta (1-p_q)^k \mathbb{E}[\tilde{A}_q] p_q$ summed over unsolved prompts. The empirical claim is that this converts unreachable solutions into reachable ones during training, so self-distillation can then compress them into pass@1, and the gains transfer to test time where no hints are present.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that guided updates improve on vanilla GRPO rests on the claim that the gradient of the guided-prompt log-likelihood is a positive scalar multiple of the plain-prompt gradient; this identity is generally false when the prompt text changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Guide-GRPO raises macro-average pass@1 on math benchmarks by 1-4 percentage points over vanilla GRPO at 7B and 32B scale, with the largest gains on Olympiad-level and AIME problems.
  • The gains transfer to test time without hints, because the importance weighting optimizes the unguided objective.
  • Selective guidance (only when all rollouts fail) outperforms unconditional guidance; always-on hints harm learning.
  • RLVR progress is mostly self-distillation at every scale studied, so methods that expand the pool of correct rollouts like Guide attack the bottleneck.
  • Removing PPO clipping on guided ratios and computing importance weights relative to the guided distribution are necessary for stable training.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the gradient-identity assumption in Lemma 1 fails, the importance-weighted update may not align with the plain-prompt objective; one could test this numerically and, if it fails, the learning-efficiency theorem would need a different correction.
  • The decomposition itself depends on the sampling budget $k$ used to define 'capability'; using larger $k$ would shrink the self-distillation share, so the 'primarily distillation' conclusion is budget-relative.
  • The guidance quality is generated by a strong external teacher; a natural extension is to test whether weaker or model-generated hints still yield gains, which would lower the approach's dependency on a strong teacher.
  • The method's logic generalizes to code and agent domains where verifiable rewards exist; the self-distillation-vs-capability decomposition is likely similar, but the guidance transfer may differ.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies how RLVR improves reasoning models, decomposing progress into self-distillation (converting pass@k reachable solutions into pass@1) and genuine capability gain (solving problems unreachable even at k attempts). The authors report that self-distillation dominates across model scales from 0.5B to 72B on a large multi-domain dataset. They then propose Guide, a family of online RL algorithms that injects natural-language hints only when all plain rollouts fail, and applies an importance-weighting correction to keep guided updates aligned with the unguided objective. They specialize Guide to GRPO and PPO, report improved math benchmark performance over vanilla GRPO and filtering baselines, and state a theoretical result (Theorem 1) claiming that Guide-GRPO improves one-step expected learning efficiency over vanilla GRPO under a positive guided-advantage assumption.

Significance. The empirical decomposition of RLVR progress into self-distillation versus capability gain is a valuable and clearly presented observation, backed by experiments across five model scales and more than 500,000 problems. The proposed Guide method is simple and the ablations over guidance thresholds, importance-weight choices, and PPO clipping are informative. If the theoretical guarantee were valid, it would strengthen the case that guided failure-only rollouts accelerate learning. However, the central theorem and its supporting lemmas contain serious mathematical errors, so the theoretical contribution is not established. The empirical results alone provide partial support for Guide, but the paper's advertised claim of a provable efficiency gain currently rests on incorrect derivations.

major comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B.2, Eq. (16)] Lemma 1 is false. The claim that ∇θ log πθ(yq|x~q) = wq ∇θ log πθ(yq|xq) for a scalar wq cannot hold in general: changing the conditioning text from xq to x~q changes the full conditional distribution over token sequences, and the gradient of its log-likelihood is not a scalar multiple of the plain-prompt gradient across all parameter values. A simple counterexample is a two-token distribution where guidance changes the relative probabilities of tokens; no per-example scalar weight can align the two gradients. Since this lemma is the stated justification for the off-policy importance correction in Eq. (6) and for the gradient-alignment claim used in Theorem 1, the off-policy correction is not theoretically justified.
  2. [Appendix B.3, Eqs. (30)-(31)] The proof of Theorem 1 replaces an expectation with a single trajectory without justification. Eq. (30) correctly writes ∇θpq = E_y[I[f(y)=y*_q] ∇θ log πθ(y|xq)], but Eq. (31) then asserts pq(θ_{t+1}) = pq + η pq ⟨∇θ log πθ(y_q|x_q), g⟩ + O(η^2) for one sampled y_q. The correct first-order term is η E_y[I[f(y)=y*_q] ∇θ log πθ(y|x_q)]·g. The subsequent Eqs. (34)-(38) all inherit this error, so the claimed expressions for E[ΔR_Vanilla] and E[ΔR_Guide] are not derived.
  3. [Appendix B.3, Eqs. (25)-(26), (37)-(38)] Even apart from the missing expectation, the final comparison in Eq. (38) is not a valid consequence of the preceding equations. Eq. (37) has an outer sum over q of pq times a gradient norm, but the change in expected number of solved problems is a sum over prompts of the change in each prompt's success probability, which requires the expectation over y∼πθ(·|xq) inside each term. The proof's replacement of these expectations by single-trajectory norms makes the claimed superiority of Guide-GRPO unsupported.
  4. [Appendix B.2, Lemma 2 and Eq. (23)] Lemma 2's proof contains a sign error and an algebraic mistake. From Eqs. (21)-(22), the actual difference is Δ_sel − Δ_all = −η Σ_q [1−(1−p_q)^k] Ã^succ_q p_q, not −η Σ_q [1−(1−p_q)^k] (Ã^fail_q − Ã^succ_q) p_q. The printed Eq. (23) substitutes Ã^fail_q − Ã^succ_q for Ã^succ_q, which is not equivalent. Moreover, if Ã^fail_q ≥ Ã^succ_q as claimed, the sign of the correct expression is negative whenever Ã^succ_q > 0, giving Δ_sel < Δ_all, the opposite of the lemma's conclusion. Thus the claim that selective guidance outperforms or matches always-guidance is not established.
  5. [Section 3.2.2, Tables 1-2] The text states that Guide-GRPO 'consistently outperforms all baselines' and that its improvements are 'consistent' when scaling, but the tables show several per-benchmark regressions. In Table 1, Guide-GRPO is worse than vanilla GRPO on MINERVA pass@1 (32.35 vs 32.72) and on AIME24 pass@16 (56.67 vs 60.00). In Table 2, Guide-7B-8K is worse than GRPO-7B-8K on MINERVA pass@1, AIME24 pass@1, and AIME25 pass@1. The macro-average improvements are positive, but the 'consistent' claim is not supported by the reported numbers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'Based of these insights' should be 'Based on these insights.'
  2. [Appendix I.1] 'comparsion' should be 'comparison'; 'indepedent' in Table 4's caption should be 'independent.'
  3. [Appendix E and Eq. (6)] The main text says importance ratios are re-weighted with an adaptive policy-reshaping described in Appendix E, but neither Eq. (6) nor Algorithm 1 includes the f(w_i) factor. The relationship between the reshaping and the off-policy correction should be made explicit.
  4. [Tables 4-5] Several pass@1 confidence intervals are reported as ±0.00 (e.g., GRPO MATH500 pass@1 and AIME25 pass@1 for all methods). This is surprising for quantities averaged over five independent runs and deserves a brief explanation or a different reporting method.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Theorem 1's claimed Guide-GRPO guarantee is an algebraic restatement of its 'guided advantage is positive' assumption; the empirical comparisons are independent and prevent a higher circularity score.

  1. self definitional [Appendix B.3, Theorem 1 (Eqs. 24–26 and 39); main text Section 2.2]
    "Suppose that, in expectation over unsolved prompts and the group Gq of guided and unguided trajectories, the guided advantage is positive: Eq∈U[ Ey∼πθ(·|˜xq)[ ˜Aq(y;Gq) ] ] > 0. Then ... E[∆RGuide] > E[∆RVanilla]. ... E[∆RGuide] = η Σq∈U [ Aq p²q + (1−pq)^k Ey∼πθ(·|˜xq)[ ˜Aq(y)] pq ] + O(η²). ... As long as Eq∈U[ Ey∼πθ(·|˜xq)[ ˜Aq(y;Gq) ] ] > 0, the guide update yields a greater gain."

    The claimed advantage of Guide over vanilla is precisely the extra term ηΣq∈U(1−pq)^k E[˜Aq] pq appearing in Eq. 26. This term is positive if and only if the assumed positivity of the expected guided advantage holds (for pq>0, (1−pq)^k≥0), and the vanilla terms Aq p²q cancel in the comparison. All of the Taylor-expansion and gradient machinery in the proof is superfluous to the inequality: the theorem restates its input assumption as its output inequality. It therefore does not derive Guide's benefit; it packages 'guidance has positive expected advantage' as 'Guide improves learning efficiency'.

  2. other [Appendix B.2, Lemma 2 (Eqs. 18–23), Proof 1]
    "Moreover, since ˜Aq(y;Gq) is computed relative to the full set of guided and unguided rollouts, and the group mean reward is lower when all plain rollouts fail, we have ˜Afail q ≥ ˜Asucc q by construction."

    The lemma's conclusion that selective guidance dominates always-guidance is made to rest on declaring the required ordering of conditional guided advantages to hold 'by construction'. The proof then subtracts the two first-order expressions and obtains Δsel − Δall = −η Σ [1−(1−pq)^k] (˜Afail − ˜Asucc) pq, which is ≤ 0 under the asserted ordering—the opposite of the claimed Δsel ≥ Δall. Thus the key comparison is not derived; it is inserted as a by-construction premise rather than proven, and the algebraic consequence is misread.

full rationale

The paper's empirical core is not circular: Guide-GRPO is compared against vanilla GRPO, Filter-GRPO, SFT, and the base model on held-out math benchmarks (Tables 1–2), and the pass@k guidance effect is measured directly (Figure 2). No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems were found. The circularity is confined to the theoretical claim. Theorem 1's inequality reduces by construction to its assumption that the expected guided advantage is positive; since that assumption is essentially 'guidance helps on unsolved prompts', the theorem does not independently establish Guide's learning-efficiency gain. The additional proof defects—Eq. 31 dropping the expectation over y in the log-derivative identity, and Lemma 1 (Eq. 16) asserting a false scalar-multiple relationship between guided and plain gradients—are mathematical errors rather than definitional circularity, but they compound the fact that the advertised theoretical guarantee is not established. Lemma 2's 'by construction' ordering and subsequent sign error further show that the selective-vs-always comparison is asserted rather than derived. Overall, the empirical results could stand alone, but the theory as presented is substantially circular and should not be cited as an independent proof of Guide's benefit.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main empirical method depends on hand-chosen thresholds, the rollout count, and the hint-generation pipeline. The theoretical claim additionally rests on an unjustified gradient identity and on the assumption that guided advantages are positive. No new physical or mathematical entities are invented.

free parameters (7)
  • rollout count k = 8 per prompt
    Used in Algorithm 1 and GRPO tables; hand-set, and the theorem's failure event (all k rollouts fail) depends on it.
  • guidance threshold = apply guidance only when all k rollouts fail
    Selected from ablation over 'All Incorrect', 'Mostly Incorrect', 'Always' (Table 3) on evaluation benchmarks; this choice drives Guide's behavior.
  • P90 percentile for policy reshaping = 90th percentile of importance ratios within each rollout
    Appendix E chooses 90th percentile from {70, 80, 90}; used in the Appendix E variant, not the main tables.
  • capability-gain labeling k = k=16 for labeling, k=8 for training rollouts
    Section 3.1.1 defines distill and capability sets with pass@16 while Tables 9 and 11 fix training k=8; the mismatch changes the decomposition and is a hand-chosen protocol.
  • PPO clip handling = clipping removed for guided trajectories
    Appendix D: clipping was removed after divergence at about 50 steps; the main objective Eq. 6 still shows a clip term, leaving ambiguity.
  • GPT-4o guidance temperature and hint count = temperature 0; 3-5 hints per problem
    Appendix G prompt design; hint quality is not measured independently, and the guidance pipeline is fixed by hand.
  • GRPO and SFT hyperparameters = RL lr 1e-6, SFT lr 1e-5, batch 1024, minibatch 512, kl coeff 0, entropy coeff 0, generation max 3072
    Hand-set in Appendices H and I; standard for RLVR runs, not fitted to the target benchmarks.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Rewards from the verifier are correct and binary on final answers.
    Used throughout Section 2 and Algorithm 1; no reward noise or partial credit is modeled.
  • domain assumption Group-relative advantage normalization over guided and unguided rollouts is well-defined and yields the claimed signal.
    Algorithm 1 lines 12-13 and Eq. 3; for all-failed unguided groups the normalized advantages are degenerate unless guided rollouts vary the rewards.
  • ad hoc to paper The expected guided advantage over unsolved prompts is positive.
    Theorem 1 assumption Eq. 14; this is close to the conclusion that guidance helps.
  • ad hoc to paper Importance-weight gradient identity in Lemma 1 (Eq. 16) holds.
    The paper asserts that the guided-prompt gradient is a scalar multiple of the plain-prompt gradient; this is generally false and is load-bearing for the proof.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o-generated hints from reference solutions improve pass@k without leaking the solution chain.
    Section 3.2.1 and Appendix G; supported by Figure 2 examples but not by a controlled quality metric.
  • domain assumption OpenR1-Math-220k training problems do not contaminate the evaluation benchmarks.
    Section I.2; no contamination analysis is reported.
  • domain assumption Pass@1 at temperature 0 and pass@16 at temperature 1 correctly represent the initial policy's ability.
    Section 3.1.1 sampling protocol; the decomposition labels depend on these two temperatures and on random subsampling of 100 rollouts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Guidance Accelerates Reinforcement Learning of Reasoning Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QFOVJHUN

@misc{pith2026250613923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Guidance Accelerates Reinforcement Learning of Reasoning Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QFOVJHUN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13923}
}
abstract

We study the process through which reasoning models trained with reinforcement learning on verifiable rewards (RLVR) can learn to solve new problems. We find that RLVR drives performance in two main ways: (1) by compressing pass@$k$ into pass@1 and (2) via "capability gain" in which models learn to solve new problems that they previously could not solve even at high $k$. We find that while capability gain exists across model scales, learning to solve new problems is primarily driven through self-distillation. We demonstrate these findings across model scales ranging from 0.5B to 72B parameters on >500,000 reasoning problems with prompts and verifiable final answers across math, science, and code domains. We further show that we can significantly improve pass@$k$ rates by leveraging natural language guidance for the model to consider within context while still requiring the model to derive a solution chain from scratch. Based of these insights, we derive $\text{Guide}$ -- a new class of online training algorithms. $\text{Guide}$ adaptively incorporates hints into the model's context on problems for which all rollouts were initially incorrect and adjusts the importance sampling ratio for the "off-policy" trajectories in order to optimize the policy for contexts in which the hints are no longer present. We describe variants of $\text{Guide}$ for GRPO and PPO and empirically show that Guide-GRPO on 7B and 32B parameter models improves generalization over its vanilla counterpart with up to 4$\%$ macro-average improvement across math benchmarks. We include careful ablations to analyze $\text{Guide}$'s components and theoretically analyze Guide's learning efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Capability gain (left), self-distillation (middle), and combined progress (capability gain + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Impacts of guidance on correct rollouts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of Guide-GRPO with baseline methods across training steps (400 total). Left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of train-time rewards under different policy loss computation when training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Beacon: Knowing When and How to Perform Agentic Visual Reasoning

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Beacon improves agentic visual reasoning by teaching models when tools are necessary and how to use them for net gains, via necessity-aware rewards and hint-guided RL.

  2. LoRA Scaffolded Policy Optimization (LSPO): A Sampling-Time Low-Rank Scaffold for Recovering Reinforcement-Learning Gradient on Zero-Reward Cliff Prompts

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A training method that recovers reinforcement-learning gradient on all-fail math prompts by fitting a temporary LoRA adapter, re-rolling, and splicing successful answers into the RL batch.

  3. It Takes 8 Tokens: Weak-to-Strong Off-Policy RL via Auxiliary Branches

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    W2SPO trains a reasoning LLM by inserting short 8-token branches proposed by a weaker model into its own rollouts and updating only those branch tokens, improving Pass@1 over vanilla GRPO (64.2% vs 62.3%) with a 3.55x...

  4. TaoSR-AGRL: Adaptive Guided Reinforcement Learning Framework for E-commerce Search Relevance

    cs.IR 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    TaoSR-AGRL improves e-commerce search relevance by combining dense rule-aware reward shaping with adaptive ground-truth-guided replay in GRPO, reporting gains on Taobao's private offline and online evaluations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Richardson

    OpenAI, Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, and Adam et al. Richardson. Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, and Ruoyu et al. Zhang. Deepseek- r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, Shengyi Huang, and Hamish et al. Ivison. Tülu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Teaching large language models to reason with reinforcement learning

    Alexander Havrilla, Yuqing Du, Sharath Chandra Raparthy, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Eric Hambro, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Roberta Raileanu. Teaching large language models to reason with reinforcement learning. InAI for Math Workshop @ ICML 2024, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Does reinforcement learning really incentivize reasoning capacity in llms beyond the base model? arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13837, 2025

    Yang Yue, Zhiqi Chen, Rui Lu, Andrew Zhao, Zhaokai Wang, Shiji Song, and Gao Huang. Does reinforcement learning really incentivize reasoning capacity in llms beyond the base model? arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13837, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Reinforced self-training (rest) for language modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08998, 2023

    Caglar Gulcehre, Tom Le Paine, Srivatsan Srinivasan, Ksenia Konyushkova, Lotte Weerts, Abhishek Sharma, Aditya Siddhant, Alex Ahern, Miaosen Wang, Chenjie Gu, Wolfgang Macherey, Arnaud Doucet, Orhan Firat, and Nando de Freitas. Reinforced self-training (rest) for language modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08998, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Openai’s reinforcement fine-tuning research program, 2024

    OpenAI. Openai’s reinforcement fine-tuning research program, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Be- yond human data: Scaling self-training for problem-solving with language models.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024

    Avi Singh, John D Co-Reyes, Rishabh Agarwal, Ankesh Anand, Piyush Patil, Xavier Garcia, Peter J Liu, James Harrison, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, Aaron T Parisi, Abhishek Kumar, Alexan- der A Alemi, Alex Rizkowsky, Azade Nova, Ben Adlam, Bernd Bohnet, Gamaleldin Fathy Elsayed, Hani...

    2024

  2. [10]

    V-star: Training verifiers for self-taught reasoners

    Arian Hosseini, Xingdi Yuan, Nikolay Malkin, Aaron Courville, Alessandro Sordoni, and Rishabh Agarwal. V-star: Training verifiers for self-taught reasoners. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Language Modeling (COLM), 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    ReST- MCTS*: LLM self-training via process reward guided tree search

    Dan Zhang, Sining Zhoubian, Ziniu Hu, Yisong Yue, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. ReST- MCTS*: LLM self-training via process reward guided tree search. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.02971, 2015

    Timothy P Lillicrap, Jonathan J Hunt, Alexander Pritzel, Nicolas Heess, Tom Erez, Yuval Tassa, David Silver, and Daan Wierstra. Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.02971, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. Qwen2. 5 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115, 2024. 11

    2024 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Aime 2024

    American Mathematics Competitions. Aime 2024. 2024. Problems from the American Invitational Mathematics Examination

    2024

  8. [17]

    Aime 2025

    American Mathematics Competitions. Aime 2025. 2025. Problems from the American Invitational Mathematics Examination

    2025

  9. [18]

    Amc 2023

    American Mathematics Competitions. Amc 2023. 2023. American Mathematics Competitions 10/12

    2023

  10. [19]

    Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. InFirst Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

    2024

  11. [20]

    Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14008, 2024

    Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Leng Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, et al. Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.1...

    2024 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Deepseek-coder: When the large language model meets programming–the rise of code intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14196, 2024

    Daya Guo, Qihao Zhu, Dejian Yang, Zhenda Xie, Kai Dong, Wentao Zhang, Guanting Chen, Xiao Bi, Yu Wu, YK Li, et al. Deepseek-coder: When the large language model meets programming–the rise of code intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14196, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code.arXiv preprint, 2024

    Naman Jain, King Han, Alex Gu, Wen-Ding Li, Fanjia Yan, Tianjun Zhang, Sida Wang, Ar- mando Solar-Lezama, Koushik Sen, and Ion Stoica. Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code.arXiv preprint, 2024

    2024

  14. [23]

    Evaluating large language models trained on code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde De Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Open r1: A fully open reproduction of deepseek-r1, January 2025

    Hugging Face. Open r1: A fully open reproduction of deepseek-r1, January 2025

    2025

  16. [25]

    Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale, 2025

    Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, Yu Yue, Tiantian Fan, Gaohong Liu, Lingjun Liu, Xin Liu, Haibin Lin, Zhiqi Lin, Bole Ma, Guangming Sheng, Yuxuan Tong, Chi Zhang, Mofan Zhang, Wang Zhang, Hang Zhu, Jinhua Zhu, Jiaze Chen, Jiangjie Chen, Chengyi Wa...

    2025

  17. [26]

    Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Jeffrey Wu, Tom B

    Daniel M. Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Jeffrey Wu, Tom B. Brown, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, Paul Christiano, and Geoffrey Irving. Fine-tuning language models from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08593, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leik...

    2022

  19. [28]

    Lmrl gym: Benchmarks for multi-turn reinforcement learning with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18232, 2023

    Marwa Abdulhai, Isadora White, Charlie Snell, Charles Sun, Joey Hong, Yuexiang Zhai, Kelvin Xu, and Sergey Levine. Lmrl gym: Benchmarks for multi-turn reinforcement learning with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18232, 2023. 12

    2023 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Archer: Training language model agents via hierarchical multi-turn rl

    Yifei Zhou, Andrea Zanette, Jiayi Pan, Sergey Levine, and Aviral Kumar. Archer: Training language model agents via hierarchical multi-turn rl. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berkenkamp, editors,...

    2024

  21. [30]

    Aligning large multimodal models with factually augmented rlhf

    Zhiqing Sun, Sheng Shen, Shengcao Cao, Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yikang Shen, Chuang Gan, Liang-Yan Gui, Yu-Xiong Wang, Yiming Yang, Kurt Keutzer, and Trevor Darrell. Aligning large multimodal models with factually augmented rlhf. InFindings of the Association for Computationa...

    2024

  22. [31]

    Angang Du, Bofei Gao, Bowei Xing, Changjiu Jiang, and Cheng et al. Chen. Kimi k1.5: Scaling reinforcement learning with llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12599, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    arXiv

  24. [33]

    Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, and Charles Sutton. Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Rlef: Grounding code llms in execution feedback with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02089, 2024

    Jonas Gehring, Kunhao Zheng, Jade Copet, Vegard Mella, Taco Cohen, and Gabriel Synnaeve. Rlef: Grounding code llms in execution feedback with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02089, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Le, Sergey Levine, and Yi Ma

    Tianzhe Chu, Yuexiang Zhai, Jihan Yang, Shengbang Tong, Saining Xie, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V . Le, Sergey Levine, and Yi Ma. Sft memorizes, rl generalizes: A comparative study of foundation model post-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17161, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Scaling LLM test-time com- pute optimally can be more effective than scaling parameters for reasoning

    Charlie Victor Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling LLM test-time com- pute optimally can be more effective than scaling parameters for reasoning. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  28. [37]

    Echo chamber: Rl post-training amplifies behaviors learned in pretraining.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07912, 2025

    Rosie Zhao, Alexandru Meterez, Sham Kakade, Cengiz Pehlevan, Samy Jelassi, and Eran Malach. Echo chamber: Rl post-training amplifies behaviors learned in pretraining.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07912, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Assessing diversity collapse in reasoning

    Xingyu Dang, Christina Baek, J Zico Kolter, and Aditi Raghunathan. Assessing diversity collapse in reasoning. InScaling Self-Improving Foundation Models without Human Supervision, 2025

    2025

  30. [39]

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  31. [40]

    Bellemare, Jonathan Lebensold, Arnaud Bergeron, Joshua Greaves, Alex Fréchette, Carolyne Pelletier, Eric Thibodeau-Laufer, Sándor Toth, and Samantha Work

    Nicolas Le Roux, Marc G. Bellemare, Jonathan Lebensold, Arnaud Bergeron, Joshua Greaves, Alex Fréchette, Carolyne Pelletier, Eric Thibodeau-Laufer, Sándor Toth, and Samantha Work. Tapered off-policy reinforce: Stable and efficient reinforcement learning for llms.arXiv preprint...

    2025 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Learning to reason under off-policy guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14945, 2025

    Jianhao Yan, Yafu Li, Zican Hu, Zhi Wang, Ganqu Cui, Xiaoye Qu, Yu Cheng, and Yue Zhang. Learning to reason under off-policy guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14945, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2409.19256, 2024

    Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2409.19256, 2024. 13 A Guide Algorithms The Guide algorithm is a general method for adap...

    2024 arXiv

  34. [43]

    [Conceptual hint focusing on relevant mathematical principles]

  35. [44]

    [Strategic hint about approach without revealing steps]

  36. [45]

    [Hint addressing common misconception or roadblock]

  37. [46]

    [More direct hint if needed]

  38. [47]

    A hint to the problem is provided below: [HINT_START]

    [Final hint that guides toward the solution method without providing it] ''' The following are some examples on the guidance generated using the prompt above: 19 Example A: (Algebra) User: Find $\\frac{a^{12}-4096}{64 a^{6}}$, if $\\frac{a^{2}}{4}-\\frac{4}{a^{2}}=3$. A hint t...

  39. [48]

    Think about how the identity (a²/4) - (4/a²) might be used as a building block for factoring the larger expression

    Notice that the given condition and the expression both involve terms of the form a²and its reciprocal. Think about how the identity (a²/4) - (4/a²) might be used as a building block for factoring the larger expression. ,→ ,→

  40. [49]

    Ask yourself if a difference of powers or a recognizable factorization pattern might help connect the two parts of the expression

    Consider rewriting the numerator in a way that reveals a common factor with the given condition. Ask yourself if a difference of powers or a recognizable factorization pattern might help connect the two parts of the expression. ,→ ,→

  41. [50]

    How can this substitution simplify the structure of the problem? ,→ ,→

    It might be useful to make a substitution, such as letting x = a²/4, to help simplify both the given equation and the overall expression. How can this substitution simplify the structure of the problem? ,→ ,→

  42. [51]

    Once you have expressed the terms in a unified form using your substitution, think about how to factor or combine terms so that the given condition naturally appears in the algebraic manipulation. ,→ ,→

  43. [52]

    Use these observations to guide your step-by-step approach toward the final simplified result

    Finally, reflect on any familiar algebraic identities or factorizations you know that involve higher powers; these might help you write the expression in a form that can be directly evaluated using the given value. Use these observations to guide your step-by-step approach tow...

  44. [53]

    Think about what it means for a shape to be a square, and how its area relates to the length of one of its sides.,→

  45. [54]

    Consider how you might determine the side length from the given area without directly calculating it—what operation relates area and side length for a square?,→

  46. [55]

    What does that imply about multiplying the side length? ,→ ,→

    Once you have an idea for finding the side length, think about how you would compute the total length of fence needed for three sides of a square playground. What does that imply about multiplying the side length? ,→ ,→

  47. [56]

    Ensure each step follows from the properties of a square.,→

    Be cautious about mixing up the operations needed to go from area to side length and then to the fence perimeter. Ensure each step follows from the properties of a square.,→

  48. [57]

    using the hint

    Finally, try to translate the relationships into a step-by-step approach that first finds the side of the square and then uses that to calculate the overall fence length for three of its sides.,→ [HINT_END] Table 6: Two sample hint blocks produced by our pipeline. 20 Example C...

  49. [58]

    This example shows how a concise, domain-specific hint can redirect the model’s reasoning and correct a systematic geometric error

    After the area- invariance hint is provided, the model abandons this similarity shortcut, equates the original area 1 2 ·3·4 = 6 with the area of the translated right triangle 1 2 ·1·x , and correctly derives x=B 1C1 = 12. This example shows how a concise, domain-specific hint...

  50. [59]

    <think>\n {thoughts} </think>\n\

    train subset and use the Qwen-2.5-Math-7B trained by [41] for running inference. For these prompts we generate guidance using reference solution by using the prompt described in Appendix G. Capability Gain and DistillationWe compute the capability gain (C) and distillation set...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.