Adaptive Negative Reinforcement for LLM Reasoning:Dynamically Balancing Correction and Diversity in RLVR

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.07137v1
• Date: Fri, 08 May 2026 02:13:33 GMT
• Title: Adaptive Negative Reinforcement for LLM Reasoning:Dynamically Balancing Correction and Diversity in RLVR
• Abstract summary: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a highly effective method for improving the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Recent research shows that Negative Sample Reinforcement (NSR) can match or even exceed the performance of more complex frameworks like PPO and GRPO.<n>We propose two extensions to the NSR framework: Adaptive Negative Sample Reinforcement and Confidence-Weighted Negative Reinforcement.
• Score: 6.291433683451589
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a highly effective method for improving the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). Recent research shows that Negative Sample Reinforcement (NSR) -- which focuses on penalizing incorrect steps rather than simply rewarding correct ones -- can match or even exceed the performance of more complex frameworks like PPO and GRPO across the entire Pass@k spectrum. However, current NSR techniques usually apply a fixed penalty throughout the training process and treat every incorrect response with the same weight. To address these limitations, we propose two extensions to the NSR framework: Adaptive Negative Sample Reinforcement. Rather than using a fixed update rule, A-NSR uses time-dependent scheduling functions. In the initial training phases, the system focuses heavily on correcting errors to stabilize the model. As training continues, it shifts toward more subtle and controlled updates. We also introduce Confidence-Weighted Negative Reinforcement, which operates on the principle that different mistakes carry different levels of importance. CW-NSR assigns specific penalty weights based on the model's normalized sequence likelihood. If the model is highly confident in a wrong path, it receives a larger penalty and for uncertain errors -- where the model is effectively exploring -- are penalized less strictly. Our formal analysis shows how these mechanisms govern token-level updates, allowing the model to leverage prior-guided probability redistribution while providing a natural defense against overfitting. We evaluated these methods on difficult reasoning datasets, including MATH, AIME 2025, and AMC23, using the Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B architecture.

Related papers

• REVES: REvision and VErification--Augmented Training for Test-Time Scaling [53.197756110943395]
  We propose a two-stage iterative framework that alternates between online data/prompt augmentation and policy optimization.<n>We observe gains of +6.5 points over the RL baseline and +4.0 points over standard multi-turn training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T10:37:23Z)
• PriFT: Prior-Support Guided Supervised Fine-Tuning [74.65198014829393]
  Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is an efficient approach for downstream task adaptation.<n>SFT fits fixed demonstrations token by token, including targets poorly aligned with the model's pretrained distribution.<n>We propose PriFT, which derives token weights from a frozen pretrained reference to obtain a stable reweighting signal unaffected by fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-08T12:14:06Z)
• Curvature-Guided LoRA: Steering in the pretrained NTK subspace [60.35296431630704]
  We introduce the prediction alignment problem, aiming to match the predictor obtained via PEFT to that of full fine-tuning at the level of outputs.<n>We show that this objective naturally leads to a curvature-aware, second-order formulation, where optimal low-rank updates correspond to a Newton-like, curvature-whitened gradient.<n>Based on this insight, we propose Curvature-Guided LoRA (CG-LoRA), which selects and scales adaptation directions using local curvature information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T14:46:39Z)
• Overconfident Errors Need Stronger Correction: Asymmetric Confidence Penalties for Reinforcement Learning [17.384089089363382]
  We identify a root cause that existing methods overlook: the uniform penalization of errors.<n>Current approaches treat all incorrect rollouts within a group identically.<n>We propose the Asymmetric Confidence-aware Error Penalty (ACE)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-24T22:46:43Z)
• Save the Good Prefix: Precise Error Penalization via Process-Supervised RL to Enhance LLM Reasoning [59.76691952347156]
  Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a powerful framework for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Most existing RL approaches rely on sparse outcome rewards, which fail to credit correct intermediate steps in partially successful solutions.<n>We propose Verifiable Prefix Policy Optimization (VPPO), which uses PRMs only to localize the first error during RL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T21:38:20Z)
• STABLE: Gated Continual Learning for Large Language Models [0.0]
  STABLE is a gated continual self editing framework that constrains forgetting during sequential updates.<n>Each candidate edit is evaluated against a stability budget using one of three metrics.<n>Experiments on the Qwen-2.5-7B model show that gating effectively mitigates forgetting while preserving adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T16:14:05Z)
• ASPO: Asymmetric Importance Sampling Policy Optimization [31.38346888572171]
  The Importance Sampling (IS) ratios of positive-advantage tokens are mismatched, leading to unbalanced token weighting for positive and negative tokens.<n>This mismatch suppresses the update of low-probability tokens while over-amplifying already high-probability ones.<n>We propose Asymmetric Importance Sampling Policy Optimization (ASPO), which uses a simple yet effective strategy that flips the IS ratios of positive-advantage tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T15:54:24Z)
• Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable yet Noisy Rewards under Imperfect Verifiers [90.50039419576807]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) trains policies against automated verifiers to avoid costly human labeling.<n>To reduce vulnerability to verifier hacking, many RLVR systems collapse rewards to binary $0,1$ during training.<n>This choice carries a cost: it introduces textitfalse negatives (rejecting correct answers, FNs) and textitfalse positives (accepting incorrect ones, FPs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T13:56:44Z)
• Beyond Binary Rewards: Training LMs to Reason About Their Uncertainty [59.97939500426759]
  This paper describes RLCR, an approach to training reasoning models that jointly improves accuracy and confidence estimation.<n>We show that across diverse datasets, RLCR substantially improves calibration with no loss in accuracy.<n>We also demonstrate that verbalized confidence can be leveraged at test time to improve accuracy and calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T17:56:01Z)
• The Surprising Effectiveness of Negative Reinforcement in LLM Reasoning [37.13807960501503]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a promising approach for training language models (LMs)<n>We decompose the learning signal into reinforcing correct responses and penalizing incorrect ones, referred to as Positive and Negative Sample Reinforcement (PSR and NSR)<n>We show that NSR works by suppressing incorrect generations and redistributing probability mass toward other plausible candidates, guided by the model's prior beliefs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T06:10:54Z)
• Training Language Models to Self-Correct via Reinforcement Learning [98.35197671595343]
  Self-correction has been found to be largely ineffective in modern large language models (LLMs) We develop a multi-turn online reinforcement learning approach, SCoRe, that significantly improves an LLM's self-correction ability using entirely self-generated data. We find that SCoRe achieves state-of-the-art self-correction performance, improving the base models' self-correction by 15.6% and 9.1% respectively on MATH and HumanEval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T17:16:21Z)

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.