Less Noise, More Voice: Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning via Instruction Purification

Tianyi Hu; Yankai Lin; Yiju Guo; Zexu Sun

arxiv: 2601.21244 · v3 · submitted 2026-01-29 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.CL

Less Noise, More Voice: Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning via Instruction Purification

Yiju Guo , Tianyi Hu , Zexu Sun , Yankai Lin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 10:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

keywords reinforcement learningLLM reasoningRLVRprompt purificationinterference tokensrollout transferexploration efficiencymath reasoning

0 comments

The pith

LENS purifies prompts by removing interference tokens and transfers successful rollouts to train LLMs on noisy inputs, yielding faster convergence and higher accuracy in RLVR.

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

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has improved LLM reasoning but remains limited by low success rates during exploration under tight rollout budgets. The paper shows that many of these failures trace to a few interfering tokens in the original prompt rather than the underlying problem hardness. LENS first strips those tokens to create purified prompts, collects successful reasoning trajectories from them, and then reuses those trajectories to supervise policy updates when the model is trained on the original noisy prompts. This teaches the model to ignore interference in realistic settings. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach promises better sample efficiency without extra compute or larger models.

Core claim

The Less Noise Sampling Framework (LENS) identifies and removes a small set of interference tokens from prompts, generates successful rollouts on the resulting purified versions, and transfers those rollouts to guide policy optimization on the original prompts, enabling the model to learn robust reasoning that tolerates real-world prompt noise.

What carries the argument

The LENS framework, which purifies prompts by excising interference tokens, harvests successful trajectories from the clean versions, and transfers them to supervise training on the original noisy prompts.

Load-bearing premise

Many exploration failures stem mainly from a few interference tokens in the prompt rather than from the inherent difficulty of the reasoning task itself.

What would settle it

An experiment that shows removing the identified interference tokens does not produce substantially more successful rollouts, or that transferring those rollouts yields no performance lift when training on the original prompts, would falsify the central claim.

read the original abstract

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has advanced LLM reasoning, but remains constrained by inefficient exploration under limited rollout budgets, leading to low sampling success and unstable training in complex tasks. We find that many exploration failures arise not from problem difficulty, but from a small number of prompt tokens that introduce interference. Building on this insight, we propose the Less Noise Sampling Framework (LENS), which first prompts by identifying and removing interference tokens. then transfers successful rollouts from the purification process to supervise policy optimization on the original noisy prompts, enabling the model to learn to ignore interference in the real-world, noisy prompting settings. Experimental results show that LENS significantly outperforms GRPO, delivering higher performance and faster convergence, with a 3.88% average gain and over 1.6$\times$ speedup on math reasoning, and a 1.83% gain on scientific and general reasoning. Our work highlights the critical role of pruning interference tokens in improving rollout efficiency, offering a new perspective for RLVR research.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

LENS purifies prompts to collect successful rollouts then transfers them to train on noisy originals, which is a practical angle on RLVR efficiency, but the abstract gives no details on how the transfer bridges the distribution gap or whether the gains are robust.

read the letter

The main new element is the claim that many exploration failures in RLVR stem from a handful of interference tokens in the prompt rather than task hardness. LENS removes those tokens to generate good trajectories, then uses them to supervise updates on the original noisy prompts so the model supposedly learns to ignore noise in real use. That purification-plus-transfer loop is the concrete mechanism they add on top of standard RLVR like GRPO. It is a straightforward idea that targets a real bottleneck in rollout efficiency under limited budgets. If the reported 3.88% math gain and 1.6x speedup hold, it would be a useful incremental improvement for anyone training reasoning models with constrained compute. The smaller 1.83% lift on scientific and general tasks is less dramatic but still points in the same direction. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress-test note. Training on clean prompts and then applying the policy to noisy ones creates an obvious distribution shift, and nothing in the abstract shows that the optimization actually teaches the model to downweight interference tokens at inference time. It is equally plausible that the gains come simply from higher-quality positive examples during training without any learned robustness. The abstract also omits the precise purification procedure, ablation results, statistical tests, and baseline implementation details, so the numbers cannot be assessed for reproducibility or sensitivity. This is the sort of targeted efficiency tweak that RL-for-reasoning groups would want to examine. A reader already working on prompt quality or rollout strategies would get value from the observation even if the transfer claim needs more evidence. It deserves peer review because the core empirical hunch is clear and falsifiable; referees can check whether the experiments close the distribution-shift gap and whether the gains survive proper controls.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Less Noise Sampling Framework (LENS) for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) in LLMs. It posits that many exploration failures stem from a small number of interference tokens in prompts rather than inherent task difficulty. LENS identifies and removes these tokens to collect successful rollouts, then transfers them to supervise policy optimization on the original noisy prompts so the model learns to ignore interference in real-world settings. Experiments claim LENS outperforms GRPO with a 3.88% average gain and >1.6× speedup on math reasoning plus a 1.83% gain on scientific and general reasoning.

Significance. If the empirical gains and transfer mechanism hold under rigorous validation, the work provides a practical, low-overhead technique to improve rollout efficiency and training stability in RLVR. It reframes prompt interference as a controllable factor rather than an inherent limit, with potential to generalize beyond the reported math and reasoning benchmarks.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: performance numbers (3.88% gain, 1.6× speedup, 1.83% gain) are reported without any experimental details, baselines, statistical tests, ablation studies, or rollout budgets. This absence makes it impossible to assess whether the data support the central claim that LENS improves exploration via purification rather than simply increasing effective sample quality.
[Method] Method description (transfer step): the claim that successful rollouts collected on purified prompts will teach the policy to ignore interference on the original noisy prompts rests on an unanalyzed distribution shift. No analysis is provided of how the optimization objective bridges the prompt gap or whether the resulting policy actually down-weights interference tokens at inference time; without this, the reported gains do not yet substantiate the stated insight about prompt purification.

minor comments (2)

[Method] Notation for the purification step and the transfer loss is introduced without a clear equation or pseudocode block, making the exact training objective difficult to reproduce.
[Abstract] The abstract states 'over 1.6× speedup' but does not specify whether this is wall-clock time, number of rollouts, or tokens processed; a precise definition would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point-by-point below, indicating planned revisions to strengthen the presentation of our results and analysis.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: performance numbers (3.88% gain, 1.6× speedup, 1.83% gain) are reported without any experimental details, baselines, statistical tests, ablation studies, or rollout budgets. This absence makes it impossible to assess whether the data support the central claim that LENS improves exploration via purification rather than simply increasing effective sample quality.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from additional context to allow readers to better evaluate the claims. In the revised version, we will expand the abstract to briefly reference the GRPO baseline, the math reasoning benchmarks used, the rollout budget constraints, and note that full experimental details, ablations, and statistical significance tests (including p-values for the reported gains) appear in Sections 4 and 5. This addresses the concern while respecting abstract length limits. revision: yes
Referee: [Method] Method description (transfer step): the claim that successful rollouts collected on purified prompts will teach the policy to ignore interference on the original noisy prompts rests on an unanalyzed distribution shift. No analysis is provided of how the optimization objective bridges the prompt gap or whether the resulting policy actually down-weights interference tokens at inference time; without this, the reported gains do not yet substantiate the stated insight about prompt purification.

Authors: The transfer step optimizes the policy on original prompts using successful trajectories collected from purified versions, with the RL objective encouraging robustness to the added interference tokens. We acknowledge the absence of explicit analysis on the distribution shift and token weighting. In the revision, we will add a new subsection with attention-weight and token-importance analysis (pre- and post-training) demonstrating down-weighting of interference tokens, along with a brief discussion of how the objective bridges the prompt gap. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical method with external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper's core contribution is an empirical framework (LENS) that identifies interference tokens, purifies prompts, collects successful rollouts, and transfers them to supervise policy updates on original prompts. This rests on an observed pattern about token interference and is validated through direct performance comparisons to GRPO on math, scientific, and general reasoning tasks. No equations or derivations are presented that reduce to self-definition, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The reported gains (3.88% math, 1.83% others, 1.6× speedup) are positioned as experimental outcomes rather than constructed equivalences. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5485 in / 1014 out tokens · 28033 ms · 2026-05-16T10:04:48.058430+00:00 · methodology

Less Noise, More Voice: Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning via Instruction Purification

Core claim

What carries the argument

Load-bearing premise

What would settle it

discussion (0)