pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.02073 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-03 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: no theorem link

Enhanced LLM Reasoning by Optimizing Reward Functions with Search-Driven Reinforcement Learning

Arash Ahmadi, Sarah Sharif, Yaser (Mike) Banad

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 02:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords LLM reasoningreward function optimizationreinforcement learningGRPOGSM8Ksearch-driven frameworkensemble rewards
0
0 comments X

The pith

An iterative search that generates and ranks reward functions via short training runs lifts LLM mathematical reasoning F1 from 0.609 to 0.795.

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

The paper demonstrates that reward function design, the main remaining lever once a base model is fixed, can be treated as an optimizable object rather than a manual choice. A frontier language model proposes candidate rewards, which are automatically validated and screened in 500-step GRPO runs on a 3B model with LoRA, then ranked by F1 score on GSM8K. Ranked summaries feed back into the next generation round, producing 50 candidates over five iterations. Mean F1 rises from 0.596 to 0.632, top single rewards reach 0.787, and the best ensemble of five or more reaches 0.795 F1 and 0.660 accuracy. A random five-reward control drops to 0.047 F1, isolating the ranked-feedback mechanism as the source of the 0.19 absolute gain over a base-rewards-only baseline.

Core claim

The paper establishes that an iterative search over reward functions, driven by generation from a frontier model, automatic validation, short GRPO training runs, and ranking by F1 score on GSM8K, produces reward specifications that yield higher reasoning performance when used in policy optimization. Specifically, the mean F1 increases across rounds, top rewards reach 0.787, and ensembles achieve 0.795 F1 and 0.660 accuracy, outperforming a base-rewards baseline by 0.19 in F1. Controls confirm that the ranked feedback, rather than merely combining multiple rewards, is responsible for the improvement.

What carries the argument

The iterative ranked-feedback loop that generates new reward candidates from summaries of prior high-performing rewards, screens them via 500-step GRPO on a 3B model with LoRA, and selects based on GSM8K F1.

If this is right

  • Reward function design can be automated through generation and short-run screening rather than hand-crafted for each task.
  • Ensembles of five or more top-ranked rewards deliver statistically indistinguishable but higher performance than single rewards or base sets.
  • The ranked-feedback loop, not the mere addition of multiple rewards, drives the observed gains, as shown by the random-control collapse.
  • Performance improves progressively across search rounds, with mean F1 rising and top individual rewards reaching 0.787.
  • Three-seed re-training of the best ensemble yields stable F1 of 0.785, confirming reproducibility of the selected rewards.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The screening method could reduce the cost of exploring reward spaces for tasks beyond GSM8K by using brief runs as proxies.
  • If the short-run ranking generalizes, the framework offers a route to make RL post-training less dependent on expert reward engineering.
  • Extending the loop to larger base models or longer training horizons might amplify the absolute gains observed here.
  • The approach suggests reward optimization could be applied to other domains where policy optimization is sensitive to reward specification.

Load-bearing premise

Short 500-step GRPO training runs on a 3B model with LoRA accurately predict which reward functions will perform best in full-scale training or on larger models, without overfitting to the GSM8K test set.

What would settle it

Retraining the top ensemble rewards using full-length GRPO on the same or larger models and measuring whether the F1 advantage over the base-rewards baseline persists.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02073 by Arash Ahmadi, Sarah Sharif, Yaser (Mike) Banad.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Framework overview. Panel (A) details one round of search-driven reward synthesis (of five). Twenty GSM8K examples view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Precision versus recall for all 50 individual reward view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: All ensemble configurations compared on four evalua view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Mathematical reasoning is a key benchmark for large language models. Reinforcement learning is a standard post-training mechanism for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models, yet performance remains sensitive to the design of the reward function that drives policy optimization. This paper introduces a search-driven framework that treats the reward specification itself as an object of optimization. The setting of interest is one in which the base model is held fixed and the reward specification is the primary remaining design lever. Candidate reward functions are generated by a frontier language model, validated automatically, screened through 500-step Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) training runs on a Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct base model with Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA), and ranked by F1 on the GSM8K test set. Ranked summaries from prior rounds are then fed back into the next round of generation. Over five rounds, the search produces 50 candidate rewards. The mean F1 rises from 0.596 in Round 1 to 0.632 in Round 5, and the top individual reward reaches F1 = 0.787. Seven ensemble configurations of top-ranked rewards are evaluated. The best ensemble achieves F1 = 0.795 (95% bootstrap CI [0.756, 0.832]) and accuracy 0.660 [0.635, 0.686], a 0.19 absolute F1 gain over a base-rewards-only GRPO baseline (F1 = 0.609). Pairwise McNemar tests with Bonferroni correction show all five-or-more-reward configurations are statistically indistinguishable at {\alpha} = 0.05/21. A three-seed re-training of the best ensemble yields F1 of 0.785. A randomly drawn 5-reward control collapses to F1 = 0.047, which shows that the ranked-feedback loop, not the additive signal of having more rewards, drives the gain.

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 presents a search-driven framework for optimizing reward functions in Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to enhance LLM mathematical reasoning. Candidate rewards are generated by a frontier model, screened via 500-step GRPO runs on Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct with LoRA, ranked by F1 on the GSM8K test set, and iteratively refined over five rounds using ranked feedback. The top ensemble achieves F1=0.795 (95% CI [0.756,0.832]) and accuracy 0.660, a 0.19 gain over the base-rewards baseline (F1=0.609), with supporting McNemar tests and a random-reward control at F1=0.047.

Significance. If the gains prove robust under held-out evaluation, the method could provide a scalable, automated alternative to manual reward engineering for RL post-training, with the iterative feedback loop and negative control offering evidence that structured search outperforms naive ensembling. The concrete metrics, CIs, and statistical tests are strengths that would support broader adoption if methodological concerns are resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3 (search and ranking procedure)] The procedure ranks and selects rewards explicitly by F1 on the GSM8K test set (abstract and screening description), then reports final ensemble performance on the identical test set. This creates direct selection bias: the search optimizes the reward specification against the evaluation distribution, so reported gains (0.795 F1 vs. 0.609 baseline) may reflect fitting to test-set idiosyncrasies rather than general reasoning improvements. A held-out validation split or cross-validation for ranking is required to substantiate the central claim.
  2. [Section 4 (Experiments) and screening protocol] Screening relies on only 500-step GRPO runs with LoRA on a 3B model (abstract and experimental setup). These short, low-rank trajectories provide noisy estimates for ranking and may not predict reward quality under longer training or larger models, undermining the reliability of the iterative feedback loop and the mean F1 rise from 0.596 to 0.632 across rounds.
  3. [Results and statistical analysis] The random 5-reward control (F1=0.047) rules out naive ensembling but does not address the test-set selection bias in the ranked-feedback process; the McNemar tests and three-seed re-training (F1=0.785) are performed on the same distribution used for selection.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Section 3 and Appendix] Clarify whether the base model or any prior training touched GSM8K test data, and report exact hyperparameter values for the 500-step GRPO runs (learning rate, batch size, LoRA rank) to enable reproduction.
  2. [Table 2 or Results] The bootstrap CI and Bonferroni-corrected McNemar tests are appropriately reported, but add a table showing per-round top-F1 values and the exact ensemble compositions to improve transparency.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback identifying key methodological issues. We address each major comment below with honest assessments and commit to revisions that strengthen the validity of our claims without altering the core search-driven framework.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Section 3 (search and ranking procedure)] The procedure ranks and selects rewards explicitly by F1 on the GSM8K test set (abstract and screening description), then reports final ensemble performance on the identical test set. This creates direct selection bias: the search optimizes the reward specification against the evaluation distribution, so reported gains (0.795 F1 vs. 0.609 baseline) may reflect fitting to test-set idiosyncrasies rather than general reasoning improvements. A held-out validation split or cross-validation for ranking is required to substantiate the central claim.

    Authors: We agree this is a substantive limitation in the current design. Using the test set for ranking introduces selection bias that could inflate reported gains. In the revised manuscript we will adopt a held-out validation split (20% of GSM8K training data) for all ranking and selection steps during the iterative search. Final ensemble results and statistical tests will be reported exclusively on the original untouched test set. We will also include a direct comparison of validation-set versus test-set performance for the selected rewards to quantify any overfitting. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section 4 (Experiments) and screening protocol] Screening relies on only 500-step GRPO runs with LoRA on a 3B model (abstract and experimental setup). These short, low-rank trajectories provide noisy estimates for ranking and may not predict reward quality under longer training or larger models, undermining the reliability of the iterative feedback loop and the mean F1 rise from 0.596 to 0.632 across rounds.

    Authors: The 500-step protocol was selected to make screening of 50 candidates computationally feasible. We acknowledge that short runs yield noisy estimates and may not fully predict longer-training behavior. In revision we will add a targeted validation study: the top five rewards from each round will be re-trained for 2000 steps, and we will report the Spearman correlation between short-run and long-run F1 scores. This will directly test whether the observed round-over-round improvement (0.596 to 0.632) persists under extended training. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Results and statistical analysis] The random 5-reward control (F1=0.047) rules out naive ensembling but does not address the test-set selection bias in the ranked-feedback process; the McNemar tests and three-seed re-training (F1=0.785) are performed on the same distribution used for selection.

    Authors: The random control isolates the benefit of ranked feedback from simple ensembling, yet it does not resolve the underlying selection bias. Once the held-out validation split is implemented for ranking (as described in response to the first comment), we will recompute the McNemar tests and three-seed re-training using validation-set selection and test-set evaluation. This will provide bias-reduced statistical support for the reported gains. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Purely empirical search procedure with no derivation chain or self-referential predictions

full rationale

The manuscript presents an empirical framework for generating, screening, and ranking reward functions via repeated short GRPO runs on GSM8K, with final performance reported on the same test set. No mathematical derivations, first-principles results, or equations appear in the abstract or described procedure. Consequently, none of the six enumerated circularity patterns can be instantiated: there are no self-definitional quantities, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, no smuggled ansatzes, and no renamed known results. The ranking-by-test-F1 step is a methodological design choice whose validity can be debated on statistical grounds, but it does not reduce any claimed derivation to its own inputs by construction. The study is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on the abstract alone, no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are detailed beyond standard RL components; the reward functions are generated by an external frontier model rather than postulated by the authors.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5666 in / 1266 out tokens · 50453 ms · 2026-05-11T02:07:20.533395+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · 9 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, D. Zhou,et al., “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 24824–24837, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models

    X. Wang, J. Wei, D. Schuurmans, Q. Le, E. Chi, S. Narang, A. Chowdhery, and D. Zhou, “Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems

    K. Cobbe, V . Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, M. Chen, H. Jun, L. Kaiser, M. Plappert, J. Tworek, J. Hilton, R. Nakano,et al., “Training verifiers to solve math word problems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017. 14

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences,

    P. F. Christiano, J. Leike, T. Brown, M. Martic, S. Legg, and D. Amodei, “Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,

    L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray,et al., “Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 27730–27744, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback

    Y . Bai, S. Kadavath, S. Kundu, A. Askell, J. Kernion, A. Jones, A. Chen, A. Goldie, A. Mirhoseini, C. McKinnon,et al., “Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

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

    R. Rafailov, A. Sharma, E. Mitchell, C. D. Manning, S. Ermon, and C. Finn, “Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 36, pp. 53728–53741, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Let’s verify step by step,

    H. Lightman, V . Kosaraju, Y . Burda, H. Edwards, B. Baker, T. Lee, J. Leike, J. Schulman, I. Sutskever, and K. Cobbe, “Let’s verify step by step,” in The twelfth international conference on learning representations, 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    The lessons of developing process reward models in mathematical reasoning,

    Z. Zhang, C. Zheng, Y . Wu, B. Zhang, R. Lin, B. Yu, D. Liu, J. Zhou, and J. Lin, “The lessons of developing process reward models in mathematical reasoning,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pp. 10495–10516, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Rewardbench: Evaluating reward models for language modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13787, 2024

    N. Lambert, V . Pyatkin, J. Morrison, L. Miranda, B. Y . Lin, K. Chandu, N. Dziri, S. Kumar, T. Zick, Y . Choi,et al., “Rewardbench: Evaluating reward models for language modeling, 2024,”URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2403.13787, vol. 40

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Inverse reward design,

    D. Hadfield-Menell, S. Milli, P. Abbeel, S. J. Russell, and A. Dragan, “Inverse reward design,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    On learning intrinsic rewards for policy gradient methods,

    Z. Zheng, J. Oh, and S. Singh, “On learning intrinsic rewards for policy gradient methods,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 31, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Evolved policy gradients,

    R. Houthooft, Y . Chen, P. Isola, B. Stadie, F. Wolski, O. Jonathan Ho, and P. Abbeel, “Evolved policy gradients,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 31, 2018

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Automated reinforcement learning (autorl): A survey and open problems,

    J. Parker-Holder, R. Rajan, X. Song, A. Biedenkapp, Y . Miao, T. Eimer, B. Zhang, V . Nguyen, R. Calandra, A. Faust,et al., “Automated reinforcement learning (autorl): A survey and open problems,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 74, pp. 517–568, 2022

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Reward design with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00001, 2023

    M. Kwon, S. M. Xie, K. Bullard, and D. Sadigh, “Reward design with language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00001, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Language to rewards for robotic skill synthesis

    W. Yu, N. Gileadi, C. Fu, S. Kirmani, K.-H. Lee, M. G. Arenas, H.-T. L. Chiang, T. Erez, L. Hasenclever, J. Humplik,et al., “Language to rewards for robotic skill synthesis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08647, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Text2reward: Reward shaping with language models for reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11489,

    T. Xie, S. Zhao, C. H. Wu, Y . Liu, Q. Luo, V . Zhong, Y . Yang, and T. Yu, “Text2reward: Reward shaping with language models for reinforcement learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11489, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Eureka: Human-Level Reward Design via Coding Large Language Models

    Y . J. Ma, W. Liang, G. Wang, D.-A. Huang, O. Bastani, D. Jayaraman, Y . Zhu, L. Fan, and A. Anandkumar, “Eureka: Human-level reward design via coding large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12931, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Revolve: Reward evolution with large language models using human feedback,

    R. Hazra, A. Sygkounas, A. Persson, A. Loutfi, and P. Z. D. Martires, “Revolve: Reward evolution with large language models using human feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01309, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    A large language model-driven reward design framework via dynamic feedback for reinforcement learning,

    S. Sun, R. Liu, J. Lyu, J.-W. Yang, L. Zhang, and X. Li, “A large language model-driven reward design framework via dynamic feedback for reinforcement learning,”Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 326, p. 114065, 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

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

    Z. Shao, P. Wang, Q. Zhu, R. Xu, J. Song, X. Bi, H. Zhang, M. Zhang, Y . Li, Y . Wu,et al., “Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

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

    D. Guo, D. Yang, H. Zhang, J. Song, P. Wang, Q. Zhu, R. Xu, R. Zhang, S. Ma, X. Bi,et al., “Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Self-Rewarding Language Models

    W. Yuan, R. Y . Pang, K. Cho, X. Li, S. Sukhbaatar, J. Xu, and J. Weston, “Self-rewarding language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10020, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Eager: Asking and answering questions for automatic reward shaping in language-guided rl,

    T. Carta, P.-Y . Oudeyer, O. Sigaud, and S. Lamprier, “Eager: Asking and answering questions for automatic reward shaping in language-guided rl,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 12478–12490, 2022

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14768 , year=

    T. Xie, Z. Gao, Q. Ren, H. Luo, Y . Hong, B. Dai, J. Zhou, K. Qiu, Z. Wu, and C. Luo, “Logic-rl: Unleashing llm reasoning with rule-based reinforcement learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14768, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.,

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, W. Chen,et al., “Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.,”Iclr, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 3, 2022

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    The Llama 3 Herd of Models

    A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Vaughan,et al., “The llama 3 herd of models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Reinforcement learning (rl) guide

    Unsloth AI, “Reinforcement learning (rl) guide.” https://unsloth.ai/docs/get-started/reinforcement-learning-rl-guide, 2025. Documentation accessed 2026

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Trl: Transformers reinforcement learning,

    L. von Werra, Y . Belkada, L. Tunstall, E. Beeching, T. Thrush, N. Lambert, S. Huang, K. Rasul, and Q. Gallou ´edec, “Trl: Transformers reinforcement learning,” 2020

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Unsloth

    U. AI, D. Han-Chen, and M. Han-Chen, “Unsloth.” https://github.com/unslothai/unsloth, 2025

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Policy invariance under reward transformations: Theory and application to reward shaping,

    A. Y . Ng, D. Harada, and S. Russell, “Policy invariance under reward transformations: Theory and application to reward shaping,” inIcml, vol. 99, pp. 278–287, Citeseer, 1999

    work page 1999

  33. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23261 (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23261

    A. Khandelwal, T. Yun, N. V . Nayak, J. Merullo, S. H. Bach, C. Sun, and E. Pavlick, “$100 k or 100 days: Trade-offs when pre-training with academic resources,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23261, 2024. Arash Ahmadireceived the B.S. degree in computer engineering from the University of Kurdistan in 2023. He is currently pursuing the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in ...

    work page arXiv 2024