Mirage or Method? How Model-Task Alignment Induces Divergent RL Conclusions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.21188v2
• Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2025 16:27:24 GMT
• Title: Mirage or Method? How Model-Task Alignment Induces Divergent RL Conclusions
• Authors: Haoze Wu, Cheng Wang, Wenshuo Zhao, Junxian He,
• Abstract summary: counterintuitive phenomena have been reported in large language models (LLMs)<n>We identify a key factor that differentiates RL observations: whether the pretrained model already exhibits strong Model-Task Alignment.<n>Our findings show that while standard RL training remains consistently robust across settings, many of these counterintuitive results arise only when the model and task already exhibit strong model-task alignment.
• Score: 22.83151273022573
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent advances in applying reinforcement learning (RL) to large language models (LLMs) have led to substantial progress. In particular, a series of remarkable yet often counterintuitive phenomena have been reported in LLMs, exhibiting patterns not typically observed in traditional RL settings. For example, notable claims include that a single training example can match the performance achieved with an entire dataset, that the reward signal does not need to be very accurate, and that training solely with negative samples can match or even surpass sophisticated reward-based methods. However, the precise conditions under which these observations hold - and, critically, when they fail - remain unclear. In this work, we identify a key factor that differentiates RL observations: whether the pretrained model already exhibits strong Model-Task Alignment, as measured by pass@k accuracy on the evaluated task. Through a systematic and comprehensive examination of a series of counterintuitive claims, supported by rigorous experimental validation across different model architectures and task domains, our findings show that while standard RL training remains consistently robust across settings, many of these counterintuitive results arise only when the model and task already exhibit strong model-task alignment. In contrast, these techniques fail to drive substantial learning in more challenging regimes, where standard RL methods remain effective.

Related papers

• Reasoning with Sampling: Your Base Model is Smarter Than You Think [52.639108524651846]
  We propose a simple iterative sampling algorithm leveraging the base models' own likelihoods.<n>We show that our algorithm offers substantial boosts in reasoning that nearly match and even outperform those from RL.<n>Our method does not require training, curated datasets, or a verifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T17:18:11Z)
• ExPO: Unlocking Hard Reasoning with Self-Explanation-Guided Reinforcement Learning [12.83211408922535]
  Reinforcement learning-style post-training improves reasoning by optimizing model outputs based on reward or preference signals.<n> GRPO-style approaches implement this by using self-generated samples labeled by an outcome-based verifier.<n>We propose $textbfSelf-Explanation Policy Optimization (ExPO)$-a simple and modular framework that generates such samples by conditioning on the ground-truth answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T17:44:55Z)
• Pitfalls of Rule- and Model-based Verifiers -- A Case Study on Mathematical Reasoning [26.717777746219635]
  We take mathematical reasoning as a case study and conduct a comprehensive analysis of various verifiers in both static evaluation and RL training scenarios.<n>First, we find that current open-source rule-based verifiers often fail to recognize equivalent answers presented in different formats across commonly used mathematical datasets, resulting in non-negligible false negative rates.<n>We investigate model-based verifiers as a potential solution to address these limitations.<n>While the static evaluation shows that model-based verifiers achieve significantly higher verification accuracy, further analysis and RL training results imply that they are highly susceptible to hacking, where they misclassify certain patterns
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T10:28:41Z)
• Echo Chamber: RL Post-training Amplifies Behaviors Learned in Pretraining [74.83412846804977]
  Reinforcement learning (RL)-based fine-tuning has become a crucial step in post-training language models.<n>We present a systematic end-to-end study of RL fine-tuning for mathematical reasoning by training models entirely from scratch.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T17:15:53Z)
• Rethinking Classifier Re-Training in Long-Tailed Recognition: A Simple Logits Retargeting Approach [102.0769560460338]
  We develop a simple logits approach (LORT) without the requirement of prior knowledge of the number of samples per class. Our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on various imbalanced datasets, including CIFAR100-LT, ImageNet-LT, and iNaturalist 2018.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-01T03:27:08Z)
• Simplifying Model-based RL: Learning Representations, Latent-space Models, and Policies with One Objective [142.36200080384145]
  We propose a single objective which jointly optimize a latent-space model and policy to achieve high returns while remaining self-consistent. We demonstrate that the resulting algorithm matches or improves the sample-efficiency of the best prior model-based and model-free RL methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-18T03:51:58Z)
• Self-Damaging Contrastive Learning [92.34124578823977]
  Unlabeled data in reality is commonly imbalanced and shows a long-tail distribution. This paper proposes a principled framework called Self-Damaging Contrastive Learning to automatically balance the representation learning without knowing the classes. Our experiments show that SDCLR significantly improves not only overall accuracies but also balancedness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-06T00:04:49Z)
• Models, Pixels, and Rewards: Evaluating Design Trade-offs in Visual Model-Based Reinforcement Learning [109.74041512359476]
  We study a number of design decisions for the predictive model in visual MBRL algorithms. We find that a range of design decisions that are often considered crucial, such as the use of latent spaces, have little effect on task performance. We show how this phenomenon is related to exploration and how some of the lower-scoring models on standard benchmarks will perform the same as the best-performing models when trained on the same training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-08T18:03:21Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.