pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.01970 · v2 · pith:GV654GS4new · submitted 2026-02-02 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.LG

Small Generalizable Prompt Predictive Models Can Steer Efficient RL Post-Training of Large Reasoning Models

Yun Qu , Qi Wang , Yixiu Mao , Heming Zou , Yuhang Jiang , Weijie Liu , Clive Bai , Kai Yang
show 3 more authors
Yangkun Chen Saiyong Yang Xiangyang Ji
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 14:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.LG
keywords prompt selectionreinforcement learninglarge language modelsBayesian inferencetraining efficiencyreasoning modelsgeneralizable prediction
0
0 comments X

The pith

A small generative model trained on optimization history can guide more efficient reinforcement learning for large reasoning models by selecting informative prompts.

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

Reinforcement learning improves reasoning in large language models but requires many expensive rollouts for each training update. The paper shows that a lightweight generative model can use past training data to infer which prompts are likely to be most useful, then select batches that target intermediate difficulty while maintaining diversity from earlier selections. This avoids building separate models for every prompt or running full evaluations on all candidates. The same small model later helps allocate computation more efficiently during testing. A reader would care because the approach promises faster training cycles and stronger final models without proportional increases in compute.

Core claim

GPS performs Bayesian inference on prompt difficulty with a lightweight generative model trained on shared optimization history, then applies intermediate-difficulty prioritization and history-anchored diversity when choosing prompt batches for reinforcement learning updates.

What carries the argument

Generalizable Predictive Prompt Selection (GPS), a mechanism that trains one small generative model on collective optimization history to infer prompt difficulty and generalize selection across prompts.

Load-bearing premise

A lightweight generative model trained only on shared optimization history can accurately infer prompt difficulty and generalize its predictions to new prompts without prompt-specific retraining or exact evaluations.

What would settle it

Running GPS and strong baselines that use exact per-prompt evaluations on several new reasoning benchmarks and finding no consistent gains in training steps saved or final accuracy would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.01970 by Clive Bai, Heming Zou, Kai Yang, Qi Wang, Saiyong Yang, Weijie Liu, Xiangyang Ji, Yangkun Chen, Yixiu Mao, Yuhang Jiang, Yun Qu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Framework overview. Unlike prompt-specific modeling like MoPPS ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spearman’s rank correlation and p-value during training between predicted prompt difficulty and empirical success rate. Unified Batch Utility. Specifically, at training step t, our objective is to select a subset T B t ⊂ T that maximizes the following batch-level utility: arg max T B t ⊂T U(T B t ) = ∑ τ∈T B t u(γˆ τ t ) | {z } Difficulty Utility +λ · D(T B t ; T B t−1 ) | {z } History-Anchored Diversity ,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Training curves of GPS and baselines across different scenarios and backbone models versus training steps. DS serves an oracle baseline with respect to training steps, but incurs substantially higher rollout costs. Training curves plotted against the number of rollouts are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Test-time computation allocation results across benchmarks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Training curves on Countdown with PPO and Reinforce++. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Difficulty prediction quality and effective sample ratio during training. The top row shows Spearman’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Training curves of GPS and baseline methods across different scenarios and backbone models, plotted against the number of generated rollouts to reflect computational overhead. 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Step 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Test Accuracy (%) PRIME Performance 0 20 40 60 80 100 Step 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Spearman Rank Correlation Correlation GPS (Ours) Uniform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evaluation on Countdown with PRIME using continuous process rewards. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ablation study of key components in GPS on Countdown and DeepScaler, including the generative predictive model and history-anchored diversity. 20 40 60 80 100 Step 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Effective Ratio (%) Countdown 8B 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Step 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Effective Ratio (%) DeepScaler 1.5B GPS Uniform GPS (w/o hisdiv) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Effect of history-anchored diversity on the effective sample ratio during training. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evaluation on Countdown with Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Training dynamics, showing response length, entropy, and training reward throughout training. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis on Countdown 8B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Reinforcement learning enhances the reasoning capabilities of large language models but often involves high computational costs due to rollout-intensive optimization. Online prompt selection presents a plausible solution by prioritizing informative prompts to improve training efficiency. However, current methods either depend on costly, exact evaluations or construct prompt-specific predictive models lacking generalization across prompts. This study introduces Generalizable Predictive Prompt Selection (GPS), which performs Bayesian inference towards prompt difficulty using a lightweight generative model trained on the shared optimization history. Intermediate-difficulty prioritization and history-anchored diversity are incorporated into the batch acquisition principle to select informative prompt batches. The small predictive model also generalizes at test-time for efficient computational allocation. Experiments across varied reasoning benchmarks indicate GPS's substantial improvements in training efficiency, final performance, and test-time efficiency over superior baseline methods.

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 paper introduces Generalizable Predictive Prompt Selection (GPS) for efficient RL post-training of large reasoning models. A lightweight generative model is trained on shared optimization history to perform Bayesian inference on prompt difficulty; batches are then selected via intermediate-difficulty prioritization and history-anchored diversity. The same small model is reused at test time for efficient allocation. Experiments across reasoning benchmarks are reported to yield substantial gains in training efficiency, final performance, and test-time efficiency relative to baselines.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work could meaningfully lower the rollout costs of RL-based post-training for large reasoning models by replacing per-prompt models and exact evaluations with a single transferable predictor. The focus on cross-prompt generalization from aggregated history is a direct response to limitations in existing online prompt selection methods and, if supported by rigorous controls, would constitute a practical advance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Method] Method section: the Bayesian inference step performed by the lightweight generative model is described only at a high level; no likelihood function, prior, or explicit posterior-update equations are supplied. Without these, it is impossible to verify that the procedure implements accurate Bayesian updating or that the inferred difficulty scores are transferable rather than prompt-specific artifacts.
  2. [Experiments] Experiments / Results: the abstract and method description assert “substantial improvements” yet supply no quantitative metrics, ablation tables, error bars, or statistical tests. This absence is load-bearing for the efficiency and generalization claims; without them it cannot be determined whether gains survive controls for post-hoc selection or hold outside the training distribution.
  3. [§4] §4 (or equivalent generalization analysis): the central claim that the small model generalizes across prompts without retraining rests on the assumption that it extracts transferable difficulty signals from shared history. No ablation isolating cross-prompt transfer performance from within-distribution performance is described; if such transfer fails, the intermediate-difficulty and diversity selection rules select suboptimal batches.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the acronym “GPS” appears before its expansion; expand on first use.
  2. [Method] Notation: define “history-anchored diversity” and the precise form of the batch acquisition function (e.g., any weighting between difficulty and diversity terms) so that the selection rule can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below and indicate the specific revisions that will be incorporated into the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Method] Method section: the Bayesian inference step performed by the lightweight generative model is described only at a high level; no likelihood function, prior, or explicit posterior-update equations are supplied. Without these, it is impossible to verify that the procedure implements accurate Bayesian updating or that the inferred difficulty scores are transferable rather than prompt-specific artifacts.

    Authors: We agree that the current description of the Bayesian inference step is insufficiently detailed. In the revised manuscript we will add the explicit likelihood function used by the lightweight generative model, the form of the prior over prompt difficulty, and the closed-form or approximate posterior-update equations. These additions will make the Bayesian updating procedure fully verifiable and will clarify why the resulting difficulty scores are expected to transfer across prompts rather than remaining prompt-specific artifacts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experiments] Experiments / Results: the abstract and method description assert “substantial improvements” yet supply no quantitative metrics, ablation tables, error bars, or statistical tests. This absence is load-bearing for the efficiency and generalization claims; without them it cannot be determined whether gains survive controls for post-hoc selection or hold outside the training distribution.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the main text currently lacks the full set of quantitative results, ablation tables, error bars, and statistical tests needed to substantiate the efficiency and generalization claims. In the revision we will insert comprehensive result tables that report exact metrics, multiple-run error bars, ablation studies, and appropriate statistical significance tests. These additions will allow readers to assess whether the reported gains remain after controlling for post-hoc selection and whether they generalize beyond the training distribution. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4] §4 (or equivalent generalization analysis): the central claim that the small model generalizes across prompts without retraining rests on the assumption that it extracts transferable difficulty signals from shared history. No ablation isolating cross-prompt transfer performance from within-distribution performance is described; if such transfer fails, the intermediate-difficulty and diversity selection rules select suboptimal batches.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit ablation isolating cross-prompt transfer is required to support the central generalization claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated ablation that compares the small model’s difficulty predictions and downstream batch-selection performance on held-out prompts (true cross-prompt transfer) versus prompts that appeared in the shared optimization history. This will directly test whether the model extracts transferable signals and will confirm that the intermediate-difficulty and diversity rules remain effective under transfer. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: method trains external lightweight model on shared history

full rationale

The paper introduces GPS as a lightweight generative model trained on aggregated optimization trajectories from prior runs to enable Bayesian inference on prompt difficulty and cross-prompt generalization. No equations, derivations, or self-citations are shown that define the target performance gains or Bayesian updates in terms of the model's own fitted outputs. The central claims rest on empirical results across benchmarks rather than reducing predictions to inputs by construction or via load-bearing self-citation chains. The approach is self-contained against external data and benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The abstract provides limited technical detail, so the ledger is necessarily sparse and provisional; the central claim rests on the unverified generalization ability of the small model and the effectiveness of the proposed acquisition principle.

free parameters (1)
  • parameters of the lightweight generative model
    The small model is trained on optimization history, implying fitted parameters whose values are not specified.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Bayesian inference on prompt difficulty can be performed reliably by a lightweight generative model using only shared history
    Invoked when the method is described as performing Bayesian inference toward prompt difficulty.
invented entities (1)
  • Generalizable Predictive Prompt Selection (GPS) no independent evidence
    purpose: To steer efficient RL post-training via prompt selection
    New method introduced to solve the stated efficiency problem; no independent evidence outside the paper is mentioned.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5695 in / 1306 out tokens · 91449 ms · 2026-05-21T14:05:08.962371+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Where to Spend Rollouts: Hit-Utility Optimal Rollout Allocation for Group-Based RLVR

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    HORA adaptively allocates rollouts using hit utility to improve Pass@K over compute-matched GRPO on math reasoning benchmarks while preserving Pass@1.

  2. Listwise Policy Optimization: Group-based RLVR as Target-Projection on the LLM Response Simplex

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LPO reframes group-based RLVR as explicit target-projection on the LLM response simplex and performs exact divergence minimization to achieve monotonic listwise improvement with bounded gradients.

  3. Listwise Policy Optimization: Group-based RLVR as Target-Projection on the LLM Response Simplex

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Listwise Policy Optimization explicitly performs target-projection on the LLM response simplex, unifying and improving group-based RLVR methods with monotonic improvement and flexible divergences.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 31 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Online difficulty filtering for reasoning oriented reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03380,

    Sanghwan Bae, Jiwoo Hong, Min Young Lee, Hanbyul Kim, JeongYeon Nam, and Donghyun Kwak. Online difficulty filtering for reasoning oriented reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03380,

    work page arXiv

  2. [2]

    Self-evolving curriculum for llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14970,

    Xiaoyin Chen, Jiarui Lu, Minsu Kim, Dinghuai Zhang, Jian Tang, Alexandre Pich´e, Nicolas Gontier, Yoshua Bengio, and Ehsan Kamalloo. Self-evolving curriculum for llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14970,

    work page arXiv

  3. [3]

    SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes: A Comparative Study of Foundation Model Post-training

    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,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge

    Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2110.14168. Ganqu Cui, Lifan Yuan, Zefan Wang, Hanbin Wang, Wendi Li, Bingxiang He, Yuchen Fan, Tianyu Yu, Qixin Xu, Weize Chen, et al. Process reinforcement through implicit rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01456,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Safe RLHF: Safe Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback

    Josef Dai, Xuehai Pan, Ruiyang Sun, Jiaming Ji, Xinbo Xu, Mickel Liu, Yizhou Wang, and Yaodong Yang. Safe rlhf: Safe reinforcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12773,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Learning how hard to think: Input-adaptive allocation of lm computation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04707,

    Mehul Damani, Idan Shenfeld, Andi Peng, Andreea Bobu, and Jacob Andreas. Learning how hard to think: Input-adaptive allocation of lm computation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04707,

    work page arXiv

  8. [8]

    Reinforcement learning for reasoning in small llms: What works and what doesn’t

    Quy-Anh Dang and Chris Ngo. Reinforcement learning for reasoning in small llms: What works and what doesn’t. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16219,

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    RLHF Workflow: From Reward Modeling to Online RLHF

    Hanze Dong, Wei Xiong, Bo Pang, Haoxiang Wang, Han Zhao, Yingbo Zhou, Nan Jiang, Doyen Sahoo, Caiming Xiong, and Tong Zhang. Rlhf workflow: From reward modeling to online rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07863,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Concise reasoning via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05185,

    Mehdi Fatemi, Banafsheh Rafiee, Mingjie Tang, and Kartik Talamadupula. Concise reasoning via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05185,

    work page arXiv

  11. [11]

    Deep Think with Confidence

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2508.15260. Zhaolin Gao, Joongwon Kim, Wen Sun, Thorsten Joachims, Sid Wang, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, and Liang Tan. Prompt curriculum learning for efficient llm post-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01135,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Neural Processes

    Marta Garnelo, Jonathan Schwarz, Dan Rosenbaum, Fabio Viola, Danilo J Rezende, SM Eslami, and Yee Whye Teh. Neural processes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.01622,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    The Llama 3 Herd of Models

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    OlympiadBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Promoting AGI with Olympiad-Level Bilingual Multimodal Scientific Problems

    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:2402.14008,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    REINFORCE++: Stabilizing Critic-Free Policy Optimization with Global Advantage Normalization

    Jian Hu. Reinforce++: A simple and efficient approach for aligning large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03262,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Open-Reasoner-Zero: An Open Source Approach to Scaling Up Reinforcement Learning on the Base Model

    10 Jingcheng Hu, Yinmin Zhang, Qi Han, Daxin Jiang, Xiangyu Zhang, and Heung-Yeung Shum. Open-reasoner- zero: An open source approach to scaling up reinforcement learning on the base model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.24290,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    OpenAI o1 System Card

    Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Revisiting Entropy in Reinforcement Learning for Large Reasoning Models

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2511.05993. Amirhossein Kazemnejad, Milad Aghajohari, Eva Portelance, Alessandro Sordoni, Siva Reddy, Aaron Courville, and Nicolas Le Roux. Vineppo: Unlocking rl potential for llm reasoning through refined credit assignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01679,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Limr: Less is more for rl scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11886,

    Xuefeng Li, Haoyang Zou, and Pengfei Liu. Limr: Less is more for rl scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11886,

    work page arXiv

  22. [22]

    Cppo: Accelerating the training of group relative policy optimization-based reasoning models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22342,

    Zhihang Lin, Mingbao Lin, Yuan Xie, and Rongrong Ji. Cppo: Accelerating the training of group relative policy optimization-based reasoning models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22342,

    work page arXiv

  23. [23]

    ProRL: Prolonged Reinforcement Learning Expands Reasoning Boundaries in Large Language Models

    Mingjie Liu, Shizhe Diao, Ximing Lu, Jian Hu, Xin Dong, Yejin Choi, Jan Kautz, and Yi Dong. Prorl: Prolonged reinforcement learning expands reasoning boundaries in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24864, 2025a. Zichen Liu, Changyu Chen, Wenjun Li, Penghui Qi, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, Wee Sun Lee, and Min Lin. Under- standing r1-zero-like train...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Yun Qu, Qi Wang, Yixiu Mao, Vincent Tao Hu, Bj¨orn Ommer, and Xiangyang Ji

    Accessed: 2025-01-24. Yun Qu, Qi Wang, Yixiu Mao, Vincent Tao Hu, Bj¨orn Ommer, and Xiangyang Ji. Can prompt difficulty be online predicted for accelerating rl finetuning of reasoning models?, 2025a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2507.04632. Yun Qu, Qi Cheems Wang, Yixiu Mao, Yiqin Lv, and Xiangyang Ji. Fast and robust: Task sampling with posterior and diver...

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    What makes a reward model a good teacher? an optimization perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15477,

    Noam Razin, Zixuan Wang, Hubert Strauss, Stanley Wei, Jason D Lee, and Sanjeev Arora. What makes a reward model a good teacher? an optimization perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15477,

    work page arXiv

  26. [26]

    Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework

    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,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03314. Kihyuk Sohn, Honglak Lee, and Xinchen Yan. Learning structured output representation using deep conditional generative models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 28,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Improving data efficiency for llm reinforcement fine-tuning through difficulty-targeted online data selection and rollout replay.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05316,

    Yifan Sun, Jingyan Shen, Yibin Wang, Tianyu Chen, Zhendong Wang, Mingyuan Zhou, and Huan Zhang. Improving data efficiency for llm reinforcement fine-tuning through difficulty-targeted online data selection and rollout replay.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05316,

    work page arXiv

  31. [31]

    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, et al. Aligning large multimodal models with factually augmented rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14525,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Kimi Team, Angang Du, Bofei Gao, Bowei Xing, Changjiu Jiang, Cheng Chen, Cheng Li, Chenjun Xiao, Chen- zhuang Du, Chonghua Liao, et al. Kimi k1. 5: Scaling reinforcement learning with llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12599,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Reinforcement learning optimization for large-scale learning: An efficient and user-friendly scaling library.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06122, 2025a

    Weixun Wang, Shaopan Xiong, Gengru Chen, Wei Gao, Sheng Guo, Yancheng He, Ju Huang, Jiaheng Liu, Zhendong Li, Xiaoyang Li, et al. Reinforcement learning optimization for large-scale learning: An efficient and user-friendly scaling library.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06122, 2025a. Yanhao Wang, Michael Mathioudakis, Jia Li, and Francesco Fabbri. Max-min diver...

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning in Large Language Models with One Training Example

    Yiping Wang, Qing Yang, Zhiyuan Zeng, Liliang Ren, Liyuan Liu, Baolin Peng, Hao Cheng, Xuehai He, Kuan Wang, Jianfeng Gao, et al. Reinforcement learning for reasoning in large language models with one training example.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20571, 2025b. Youkang Wang, Jian Wang, Rubing Chen, Tianyi Zeng, Xiao-Yong Wei, and Qing Li. Optpo: Optimal rollo...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    CoRR , volume =

    Liang Wen, Yunke Cai, Fenrui Xiao, Xin He, Qi An, Zhenyu Duan, Yimin Du, Junchen Liu, Lifu Tang, Xiaowei Lv, et al. Light-r1: Curriculum sft, dpo and rl for long cot from scratch and beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10460,

    work page arXiv

  36. [36]

    LLaVA-CoT: Let Vision Language Models Reason Step-by-Step

    Guowei Xu, Peng Jin, Li Hao, Yibing Song, Lichao Sun, and Li Yuan. Llava-o1: Let vision language models reason step-by-step.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10440,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Not All Rollouts are Useful: Down-Sampling Rollouts in LLM Reinforcement Learning

    Yixuan Even Xu, Yash Savani, Fei Fang, and J Zico Kolter. Not all rollouts are useful: Down-sampling rollouts in llm reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13818,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Learning to Reason under Off-Policy Guidance

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14945. 12 An Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bofei Gao, Bowen Yu, Chengpeng Li, Dayiheng Liu, Jianhong Tu, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, et al. Qwen2. 5-math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via self-improvement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12122,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    Qwen3 Technical Report

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    LIMO: Less is More for Reasoning

    Yixin Ye, Zhen Huang, Yang Xiao, Ethan Chern, Shijie Xia, and Pengfei Liu. Limo: Less is more for reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03387,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale

    Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, Yu Yue, Tiantian Fan, Gaohong Liu, Lingjun Liu, Xin Liu, et al. Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14476,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    What’s behind ppo’s collapse in long-cot? value optimization holds the secret.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01491, 2025

    Yufeng Yuan, Yu Yue, Ruofei Zhu, Tiantian Fan, and Lin Yan. What’s behind ppo’s collapse in long-cot? value optimization holds the secret.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01491,

    work page arXiv

  43. [43]

    VAPO: Efficient and Reliable Reinforcement Learning for Advanced Reasoning Tasks

    Yu Yue, Yufeng Yuan, Qiying Yu, Xiaochen Zuo, Ruofei Zhu, Wenyuan Xu, Jiaze Chen, Chengyi Wang, TianTian Fan, Zhengyin Du, et al. Vapo: Efficient and reliable reinforcement learning for advanced reasoning tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05118,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    SimpleRL-Zoo: Investigating and Taming Zero Reinforcement Learning for Open Base Models in the Wild

    Weihao Zeng, Yuzhen Huang, Qian Liu, Wei Liu, Keqing He, Zejun Ma, and Junxian He. Simplerl-zoo: Investigating and taming zero reinforcement learning for open base models in the wild.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18892, 2025a. Yongcheng Zeng, Zexu Sun, Bokai Ji, Erxue Min, Hengyi Cai, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, Haifeng Zhang, Xu Chen, and Jun Wang. Cures: Fr...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Corresponding author: Xin Lv

    GitHub repository. Corresponding author: Xin Lv. 13 Appendix Overview This appendix provides supplementary discussions, theoretical analyses, and experimental details that support the main results. The appendix is organized as follows: • Appendix A (Related Works):reviews related works on RL post-training of LLMs and online prompt selection for RLVR. • Ap...

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    reduces computational overhead by eliminating the value network and estimating advantages through group-normalized rewards. Building on these foundations, a growing body of work focuses on stabilizing training, reducing bias, lowering variance, and improving sample efficiency (Yuan et al., 2025; Yue et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025b; Yu et al., 2025; Kazemn...

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    At each training step, k=8 responses are sampled per prompt to estimate advantages, using temperature 1.0 and top p=1.0

    as the default RLVR algorithm, implemented within the verl framework (Sheng et al., 2024). At each training step, k=8 responses are sampled per prompt to estimate advantages, using temperature 1.0 and top p=1.0 . Evaluation is performed using pass@1, computed from multiple independent generations per prompt, where the number of generations varies across b...

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    (2025a); Gao et al

    with learning rates of 1e−6 for Countdown and 4e−6 for DeepScaler, following Qu et al. (2025a); Gao et al. (2025), with β= (0.9, 0.999) , and weight decay 0.01. We apply the Clip- Higher strategy from DAPO (Yu et al., 2025), which decouples clipping ranges withϵlow =0.2 and ϵhigh =0.28 . For Countdown, we apply a post-rollout advantage normalization to st...

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    ‘+’ denotes finetuning with the corresponding method

    Countdown DeepScaler Component 4B 8B 1.5B 7B LLM Training∼72 s∼116 s∼203 s∼610 s LLM Rollout∼32 s∼39 s∼157 s∼290 s DS Sample Cost∼3×32 s∼3×39 s∼3×157 s∼3.6×290 s GPS(Sample + PPM Update)∼1 s∼1 s∼1.6 s∼1.6 s 19 Table 4: Evaluation results on Countdown. ‘+’ denotes finetuning with the corresponding method. ‘Avg.’ reports the average accuracy, and ‘Runtime’ ...

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Let’s think step by step and output the final answer within\boxed{}

    together with a formatting constraint: “Let’s think step by step and output the final answer within\boxed{} ”. For general reasoning benchmarks, we follow the evaluation protocol of Yan et al. (2025) and adopt PRIME’s prompt template. For the Countdown task, we use the prompt format introduced in Pan et al. (2025). DeepScaler & Mathematics Benchmarks exam...

    work page 2025