arxiv: 2604.11510 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI· cs.LG

Recognition: unknown

Policy Split: Incentivizing Dual-Mode Exploration in LLM Reinforcement with Dual-Mode Entropy Regularization

Chuwei Luo, Daiqing Wu, Heyan Huang, Jiashu Yao, Yangyang Kang, Yuhang Guo, Zeming Liu

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

keywords Policy SplitLLM reinforcement learningentropy regularizationdual-mode explorationhigh-entropy promptcollaborative regularizationexploration in RL

0 comments

The pith

Splitting an LLM policy into normal and high-entropy modes with shared parameters improves exploration during RL while keeping task accuracy intact.

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

The paper aims to show that a policy can be split into two modes that share the same model weights but receive different prompts and regularization. One mode stays focused on producing correct answers for the task, while the other is steered toward higher uncertainty to generate more varied outputs. Because the modes train collaboratively through the shared parameters, the exploratory outputs supply learning signals that the accuracy-focused mode would not produce on its own. Experiments across model sizes and both standard and creative tasks indicate this dual setup beats conventional entropy methods that apply a single regularization term to the whole policy.

Core claim

Policy Split bifurcates the policy into normal and high-entropy modes with a high-entropy prompt. While sharing model parameters, the two modes undergo collaborative dual-mode entropy regularization tailored to distinct objectives. Specifically, the normal mode optimizes for task correctness, while the high-entropy mode incorporates a preference for exploration, and the two modes learn collaboratively. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the approach consistently outperforms established entropy-guided RL baselines across various model sizes in general and creative tasks. Further analysis reveals that Policy Split facilitates dual-mode exploration, where the high-entropy mode generates aha

What carries the argument

Policy Split, a paradigm that divides the policy into normal and high-entropy modes via a high-entropy prompt and applies collaborative dual-mode entropy regularization so the modes can produce distinct behavioral patterns that supply unique learning signals to the shared parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The high-entropy prompt and collaborative regularization must create genuinely distinct behavioral patterns in the high-entropy mode that supply useful, non-interfering learning signals to the shared parameters without degrading normal-mode performance.

What would settle it

An experiment that finds either no measurable difference in output distributions between the two modes or a drop in normal-mode task accuracy when the high-entropy mode is added would show that the dual-mode signals are not providing the claimed benefit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11510 by Chuwei Luo, Daiqing Wu, Heyan Huang, Jiashu Yao, Yangyang Kang, Yuhang Guo, Zeming Liu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The training framework of Policy Split. term reflects the KL divergence aiming to move high-entropy mode apart from normal mode. Given the advantage computation for the normal mode (Equation 2) and the high-entropy mode (Equation 3), the PPO-like RL losses for the normal mode L and high-entropy mode Le are computed as L(q, o) = X |o| t=1 min h ρtAt , clip(ρt , 1 ± ϵ)At i , Le(q, o) = X |o| t=1 min h ρetAe… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

To encourage diverse exploration in reinforcement learning (RL) for large language models (LLMs) without compromising accuracy, we propose Policy Split, a novel paradigm that bifurcates the policy into normal and high-entropy modes with a high-entropy prompt. While sharing model parameters, the two modes undergo collaborative dual-mode entropy regularization tailored to distinct objectives. Specifically, the normal mode optimizes for task correctness, while the high-entropy mode incorporates a preference for exploration, and the two modes learn collaboratively. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms established entropy-guided RL baselines across various model sizes in general and creative tasks. Further analysis reveals that Policy Split facilitates dual-mode exploration, where the high-entropy mode generates distinct behavioral patterns to the normal mode, providing unique learning signals.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Policy Split, a paradigm that bifurcates an LLM policy into normal and high-entropy modes via a high-entropy prompt while sharing all model parameters. The modes receive collaborative dual-mode entropy regularization: the normal mode optimizes task correctness while the high-entropy mode favors exploration. The authors report that this yields consistent outperformance over established entropy-guided RL baselines across model sizes on both general and creative tasks, and that further analysis shows the high-entropy mode produces distinct behavioral patterns that supply unique learning signals to the shared weights.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the work offers a practical route to richer exploration in LLM RL without duplicating parameters or sacrificing accuracy. The dual-mode framing and collaborative regularization constitute a clear methodological contribution that could generalize beyond the reported tasks. Credit is due for the multi-size empirical sweep and the behavioral-pattern analysis; these elements make the result more falsifiable than many prompt-only or regularization-only baselines.

major comments (3)

The central claim that the high-entropy mode supplies non-interfering, unique learning signals rests on shared parameters. No ablation freezes the high-entropy branch, measures cosine similarity of hidden states across modes, or quantifies gradient conflict (e.g., cosine of gradients from the two objectives). Without such isolation, outperformance could be explained by prompt engineering or extra regularization strength rather than genuine dual-mode synergy. This directly affects the load-bearing assumption identified in the skeptic note.
The collaborative dual-mode entropy regularization is described only at the level of objectives; the manuscript supplies neither the explicit loss equations nor the weighting schedule that balances the two modes on the shared parameters. This omission prevents readers from verifying that the regularization is parameter-free or from reproducing the exact training dynamics.
The experimental section asserts consistent outperformance but does not report per-task deltas, standard deviations across seeds, or statistical significance tests against the strongest baseline. In the absence of these numbers, the claim that Policy Split “consistently outperforms” cannot be evaluated at the level required for a serious journal.

minor comments (2)

The abstract would be strengthened by replacing the qualitative phrase “consistently outperforms” with at least one concrete metric (e.g., average reward improvement or win rate) and the number of tasks/models evaluated.
Notation for the two modes (normal vs. high-entropy) and the prompt tokens that trigger each mode should be introduced once in the method section and used consistently thereafter.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the thoughtful review and the recommendation for major revision. We believe the suggested additions will improve the clarity and rigor of our work. Below we respond to each major comment.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim that the high-entropy mode supplies non-interfering, unique learning signals rests on shared parameters. No ablation freezes the high-entropy branch, measures cosine similarity of hidden states across modes, or quantifies gradient conflict (e.g., cosine of gradients from the two objectives). Without such isolation, outperformance could be explained by prompt engineering or extra regularization strength rather than genuine dual-mode synergy. This directly affects the load-bearing assumption identified in the skeptic note.

Authors: We agree that direct evidence isolating the contribution of the shared-parameter dual-mode setup would bolster the central claim. In the revised version, we will add ablations that freeze the high-entropy mode after initial training and measure the impact on the normal mode, along with quantitative analyses of hidden-state similarities and gradient cosine similarities between the two modes' objectives. These additions will help rule out alternative explanations such as prompt effects alone. We maintain that the observed distinct behavioral patterns in our current analysis support the synergy, but recognize the value of these further isolations. revision: yes
Referee: The collaborative dual-mode entropy regularization is described only at the level of objectives; the manuscript supplies neither the explicit loss equations nor the weighting schedule that balances the two modes on the shared parameters. This omission prevents readers from verifying that the regularization is parameter-free or from reproducing the exact training dynamics.

Authors: We apologize for the omission of the explicit formulations. The revised manuscript will include the full loss equations for both modes, specifying the entropy regularization terms and the weighting coefficients used to balance the task objective with the exploration objective across the shared parameters. This will ensure full reproducibility of the training procedure. revision: yes
Referee: The experimental section asserts consistent outperformance but does not report per-task deltas, standard deviations across seeds, or statistical significance tests against the strongest baseline. In the absence of these numbers, the claim that Policy Split “consistently outperforms” cannot be evaluated at the level required for a serious journal.

Authors: We will update the experimental results to include per-task performance improvements with deltas, standard deviations computed over at least three random seeds, and p-values from statistical tests comparing against the best baseline. These enhancements will provide the necessary quantitative support for the outperformance claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical proposal without derivation or self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper presents Policy Split as a novel paradigm that bifurcates the policy into normal and high-entropy modes via a high-entropy prompt and collaborative dual-mode entropy regularization. Claims rest on experimental outperformance across model sizes and tasks, with analysis of distinct behavioral patterns. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or method description. The approach is introduced directly as an empirical innovation rather than derived from prior inputs by construction. This matches the reader's note of no equations shown and keeps the central claim independent of any circular chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides insufficient technical detail to identify concrete free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the high-entropy prompt and dual-mode setup are presented as novel constructs but lack specification of their implementation or independence from data fitting.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5453 in / 1018 out tokens · 41291 ms · 2026-05-10T14:54:57.177069+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

10 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Reasoning with exploration: An entropy perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14758, 2025

Reasoning with exploration: An entropy per- spective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14758. Ganqu Cui, Yuchen Zhang, Jiacheng Chen, Lifan Yuan, Zhi Wang, Yuxin Zuo, Haozhan Li, Yuchen Fan, Huayu Chen, Weize Chen, and 1 others. 2025. The entropy mechanism of reinforcement learning for reasoning language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22617. Muzhi Dai, Chenxu Y...

work page arXiv 2025
[2]

Kimi k1.5: Scaling Reinforcement Learning with LLMs

Kimi k1. 5: Scaling reinforcement learning with llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12599. Xinyu Li, Ruiyang Zhou, Zachary C Lipton, and Liu Leqi. 2024. Personalized language modeling from personalized human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05133. Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harri- son Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulm...

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[3]

DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Models

Let’s verify step by step. InThe Twelfth Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations. Aixin Liu, Aoxue Mei, Bangcai Lin, Bing Xue, Bingx- uan Wang, Bingzheng Xu, Bochao Wu, Bowei Zhang, Chaofan Lin, Chen Dong, and 1 others. 2025a. Deepseek-v3. 2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.02556. Zichen Liu, Cha...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[4]

5: Advancing superb reasoning models with reinforcement learning , author=

Seed1. 5-thinking: Advancing superb rea- soning models with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13914. Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, and 1 others. 2024. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.033...

work page arXiv 2024
[5]

Qwen3 Technical Report

Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388. 10 Huanjin Yao, Qixiang Yin, Jingyi Zhang, Min Yang, Yibo Wang, Wenhao Wu, Fei Su, Li Shen, Minghui Qiu, Dacheng Tao, and 1 others. 2025a. R1-sharevl: Incentivizing reasoning capability of multimodal large language models via share-grpo.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16673. Jian Yao, Ran Cheng, Xingyu Wu,...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[6]

* *Low Score:* The story relies heavily on clichés or predictable tropes

**Creativity (Novelty and unique- ness of ideas):** 14 * *High Score:* The story explores unconventional concepts, unexpected plot twists, or unique world-building. * *Low Score:* The story relies heavily on clichés or predictable tropes
[7]

* *Low Score:* The author took the most literal or common interpretation of the prompt

**Originality (Innovative approach to the prompt):** * *High Score:* The author interpreted the prompt in a way that is fresh or subverts expectations. * *Low Score:* The author took the most literal or common interpretation of the prompt
[8]

* *Low Score:* The story feels disjointed, confusing, or has significant pacing issues (e.g., a rushed ending)

**Narrative Flow (Coherence and story progression):** * *High Score:* The story moves logically and smoothly; the pacing feels intentional and keeps the reader engaged. * *Low Score:* The story feels disjointed, confusing, or has significant pacing issues (e.g., a rushed ending)
[9]

* *Low Score:* The writing feels clinical, flat, or fails to make the reader care about the outcome

**Emotional Impact (Ability to evoke feelings):** * *High Score:* The writing makes the reader feel a specific emotion (sadness, joy, tension, etc.) through character depth or stakes. * *Low Score:* The writing feels clinical, flat, or fails to make the reader care about the outcome
[10]

see" and

**Imagery (Vividness of descrip- tions):** * *High Score:* Rich, sensory details that allow the reader to "see" and "feel" the environment. * *Low Score:* Vague or generic descrip- tions; over-reliance on "telling" rather than "showing." ### Input Data **Original Prompt:** prompt **Story to Evaluate:** story ### Output Format Please provide your evaluatio...

work page arXiv 1984