Correct Is Not Enough: Training Reasoning Planners with Executor-Grounded Rewards

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.03862v3
• Date: Thu, 07 May 2026 08:57:08 GMT
• Title: Correct Is Not Enough: Training Reasoning Planners with Executor-Grounded Rewards
• Abstract summary: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has become a common way to improve explicit reasoning in large language models.<n>But final-answer correctness alone does not reveal whether the reasoning trace is faithful, reliable, or useful to the model that consumes it.<n>We propose TraceLift, a planner-executor training framework that treats reasoning as a consumable intermediate artifact.
• Score: 15.458797431655961
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has become a common way to improve explicit reasoning in large language models, but final-answer correctness alone does not reveal whether the reasoning trace is faithful, reliable, or useful to the model that consumes it. This outcome-only signal can reinforce traces that are right for the wrong reasons, overstate reasoning gains by rewarding shortcuts, and propagate flawed intermediate states in multi-step systems. To this end, we propose TraceLift, a planner-executor training framework that treats reasoning as a consumable intermediate artifact. During planner training, the planner emits tagged reasoning. A frozen executor turns this reasoning into the final artifact for verifier feedback, while an executor-grounded reward shapes the intermediate trace. This reward multiplies a rubric-based Reasoning Reward Model (RM) score by measured uplift on the same frozen executor, crediting traces that are both high-quality and useful. To make reasoning quality directly learnable, we introduce TRACELIFT-GROUPS, a rubric-annotated reason-only dataset built from math and code seed problems. Each example is a same-problem group containing a high-quality reference trace and multiple plausible flawed traces with localized perturbations that reduce reasoning quality or solution support while preserving task relevance. Extensive experiments on code and math benchmarks show that this executor-grounded reasoning reward improves the two-stage planner-executor system over execution-only training, suggesting that reasoning supervision should evaluate not only whether a trace looks good, but also whether it helps the model that consumes it. Our code is available at: https://github.com/MasaiahHan/TraceLift

Related papers

• Rethinking Reward Supervision: Rubric-Conditioned Self-Distillation [60.55792673956761]
  We propose textbfRubric-Conditioned Self-Distillation, a framework that incorporates rubrics as structured, fine-grained feedback for on-policy self-distillation.<n>We evaluate on a diverse suite of science reasoning benchmarks and results show that rubric-conditioned self-distillation effectively converts rubric-level criteria into token-level guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T17:54:04Z)
• Reasoning Arena: Trace Tournaments When Verifiable Rewards Fall Short [51.667769734342635]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a leading paradigm for improving the reasoning ability of large language models.<n>We propose Reasoning Arena, an adaptive training framework that routes such non-diverse reward groups to a judge system instead of discarding them.<n>We show that Reasoning Arena consistently outperforms the RLVR baseline by 7.6% on average in competition mathematics and coding benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-08T11:57:17Z)
• LongTraceRL: Learning Long-Context Reasoning from Search Agent Trajectories with Rubric Rewards [53.339700196282905]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has shown promise for this task.<n>Existing methods are limited by low-confusability distractors and sparse, outcome-only reward signals.<n>textscLongTraceRL produces training contexts that are far more challenging than those built by random sampling or one-shot search.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T17:51:40Z)
• Reasoning-Trace Collapse: Evaluating the Loss of Explicit Reasoning During Fine-Tuning [9.426248468755272]
  We show that a fine-tuned model continues to produce plausible final answers while losing the structurally valid explicit reasoning traces.<n>We introduce a structural evaluation framework that separates answer correctness from reasoning-trace validity.<n>We show that simple loss-masking strategies can substantially collapse without requiring teacher-generated reasoning traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T12:58:01Z)
• Detecting and Suppressing Reward Hacking with Gradient Fingerprints [46.25008147178368]
  Fingerprint Gradient (GRIFT) is a method for detecting reward hacking using models' internal computations.<n>Across verifiable reasoning benchmarks, GRIFT substantially outperforms strong baselines.<n>Our results highlight a promising direction of leveraging gradient level representations for assessing the quality of CoT reasoning traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T17:01:24Z)
• Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Execution [79.98699884805636]
  Reasoning Execution by Multiple Listeners (REMUL) is a multi-party reinforcement learning approach.<n>REMUL builds on the hypothesis that reasoning traces which other parties can follow will be more faithful.<n>Speakers are rewarded for producing reasoning that is clear to listeners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T02:55:55Z)
• P2S: Probabilistic Process Supervision for General-Domain Reasoning Question Answering [51.04492568024515]
  We introduce Probabilistic Process Supervision (P2S), a novel framework for fine-grained process rewards.<n>P2S provides fine-grained process rewards without requiring a separate reward model or human-annotated reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T14:35:20Z)
• Training LLMs with LogicReward for Faithful and Rigorous Reasoning [75.30425553246177]
  We propose LogicReward, a reward system that guides model training by enforcing step-level logical correctness with a theorem prover.<n>An 8B model trained on data constructed with LogicReward surpasses GPT-4o and o4-mini by 11.6% and 2% on natural language inference and logical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-20T03:43:02Z)
• Generating Verifiable CoT from Execution-Traces [6.634229408414094]
  Chain-of-Thought prompting has shown promise, but current synthetic training data suffers from a critical weakness.<n>We address this by grounding CoT generation directly in program execution traces.<n>This execution-grounded approach ensures every reasoning step reflects what the program genuinely computes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-28T07:43:43Z)
• In-Token Rationality Optimization: Towards Accurate and Concise LLM Reasoning via Self-Feedback [38.915062716409686]
  InTRO is a new framework that enables both token-level exploration and self-feedback for accurate and concise reasoning.<n>InTRO consistently outperforms other baselines, raising solution accuracy by up to 20% relative to the base model.<n>Its chains of thought are notably more concise, exhibiting reduced verbosity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T01:47:06Z)
• Learning a Dense Reasoning Reward Model from Expert Demonstration via Inverse Reinforcement Learning [50.20267980386502]
  We learn a dense, token-level reward model for process supervision directly from expert demonstrations.<n>The learned reasoning reward serves two complementary roles: (i) it provides step-level feedback to optimise a reasoning policy during training; and (ii) it functions at inference as a critic to rerank sampled traces under fixed compute budgets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T09:55:26Z)
• Adaptive Test-Time Reasoning via Reward-Guided Dual-Phase Search [62.1546099504045]
  We propose a dual-phase test-time scaling framework that separates reasoning into planning and execution.<n>Specifically, we decompose reasoning trajectories and develop reward models for each phase, enabling the search to explore and prune plans and executions separately.<n> Experiments on both mathematical reasoning and code generation benchmarks demonstrate that our approach consistently improves accuracy while reducing computation redundant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T19:27:23Z)
• STRIVE: Structured Reasoning for Self-Improvement in Claim Verification [30.15803409441136]
  We propose STRIVE: Structured Reasoning for Self-Improved Verification.<n>Our method introduces a structured reasoning design with Claim Decomposition, Entity Analysis, and Evidence Grounding Verification.<n>It is then applied to generate reasoning chains for all training examples, selecting only those that are correct and structurally sound for subsequent self-improvement training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T16:07:07Z)
• Why do you think that? Exploring Faithful Sentence-Level Rationales Without Supervision [60.62434362997016]
  We propose a differentiable training-framework to create models which output faithful rationales on a sentence level. Our model solves the task based on each rationale individually and learns to assign high scores to those which solved the task best.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-07T12:54:28Z)

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.