When RLVR Shrinks the Reasoning Boundary: Diagnosing Pass@k Inversion

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20543v1
• Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2026 17:17:18 GMT
• Title: When RLVR Shrinks the Reasoning Boundary: Diagnosing Pass@k Inversion
• Abstract summary: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) can improve one-sample accuracy while making a model worse under repeated sampling.<n>We study this pass@k inversion: after training, the policy may solve fewer distinct problems than its base model at large $k$.<n>The failure concentrates on boundary prompts, where the base model contains rare correct trajectories that are recoverable by sampling but too sparse to reliably appear in finite RLVR rollout groups.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) can improve one-sample accuracy while making a model worse under repeated sampling. We study this pass@k inversion: after training, the policy may solve fewer distinct problems than its base model at large $k$. The failure concentrates on boundary prompts, where the base model contains rare correct trajectories that are recoverable by sampling but too sparse to reliably appear in finite RLVR rollout groups. We argue that a two-mode account explains this as an absence-of-evidence failure: rare correct trajectories may disappear before RLVR samples and reinforces them often enough. The main contribution is this diagnostic and mechanistic framing. Per-Problem Base Anchoring (PBA) is a deliberately simple proof-of-concept: sharpen prompts with sufficient frozen-base correct evidence, and anchor risky prompts to the base distribution. Across three training seeds on Omni-MATH-Test, with MATH500 as a secondary high-coverage validation benchmark, PBA improves both \PassK{1} and high-budget coverage over matched GRPO. A 3000-prompt regime-controlled diagnostic study is consistent across seeds with the expected signature: ordinary GRPO loses base-solvable boundary prompts, while PBA preserves rare verifier-positive trajectories. We use mathematical verifiers as a controlled testbed for verifier-guided optimization; the same pass@k inversion risk applies to ECCV-relevant vision-language agents when repeated visual, spatial, or chart-reasoning attempts are checked by external tools or verifiers. Reasoning post-training should decide not only how strongly to optimize, but which prompts are safe to optimize.

Related papers

• Verifier-Induced Support Reshaping in On-Policy Optimization [27.782412748608255]
  We show that on-policy reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) can improve the current objective while making successful behaviors for later objectives too rare to sample and reinforce.<n>We call this verifier-induced support reshaping and define effective rewardable support as successful trajectories reachable within a fixed rollout budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-31T19:05:43Z)
• SVR: Self-Verifying Refinement via Joint Verdict-Confidence Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Test-Time Compute [62.3458279176813]
  Self-Verifying Refinement is an oracle-free multi-turn reinforcement learning framework.<n>It learns to use self-verification as a compute-control policy.<n>It achieves a macro-average accuracy of 0.563 with only 2.99 inference turns on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T16:20:58Z)
• Understanding Diversity Collapse in RLVR via the Lens of Overtraining [78.37408098404312]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a key approach for enhancing the reasoning abilities of large language models.<n>We formalize this diversity collapse through the lens of emphovertraining<n>We propose emphBayesian Boundary Gating (BBG) which redirects optimization away from overtraining by estimating each problem's marginal contribution to the reasoning boundary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-13T20:13:37Z)
• When Good Verifiers Go Bad: Self-Improving VLMs Can Regress on New Tasks [2.743683637024251]
  Verifier-driven self-DPO is a common recipe for self-improving production visual-language models.<n>We show that this assumption can fail because verifier quality is highly task-specific.<n>We give a compact mechanistic explanation via a variance theorem for progress-gated replay and its direction-mismatch failure mode.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-12T16:55:30Z)
• When LLM Reward Design Fails: Diagnostic-Driven Refinement for Sparse Structured RL [10.399451281089318]
  We study PPO-trained agents using MiniGrid as core evaluation and MuJoCo as boundary stress test.<n>Our audit finds two dominant one-shot failure modes -- reward flooding and semantic/API misunderstanding.<n>We propose diagnostic-driven iterative refinement, where training diagnostics and a failure-mode taxonomy guide targeted reward-function revision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T17:57:43Z)
• Too Correct to Learn: Reinforcement Learning on Saturated Reasoning Data [55.84428098924793]
  We propose Constrained Uniform Top-K Sampling (CUTS), a parameter-free decoding strategy enforcing structure-preserving exploration.<n>We integrate this into Mixed-CUTS, a training framework synergizing exploitative and exploratory rollouts to amplify intra-group advantage variance.<n> Notably, Mixed-CUTS improves Pass@1 accuracy on the challenging AIME25 benchmark by up to 15.1% over standard GRPO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-20T16:43:28Z)
• 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)
• Detecting RLVR Training Data via Structural Convergence of Reasoning [31.260852555788205]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is central to training modern reasoning models.<n>We show that RLVR induces a distinctive behavioral signature.<n>We introduce Min-$k$NN Distance, a simple black-box detector that quantifies this collapse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T10:17:32Z)
• 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)
• CARE What Fails: Contrastive Anchored-REflection for Verifiable Multimodal [84.71254539482369]
  Group-relative reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often wastes the most informative data it already has the failures.<n>We present CARE, a failure-centric post-training framework for multimodal reasoning that turns errors into supervision.<n> CARE improves accuracy and training smoothness while explicitly increasing the share of learning signal that comes from failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T16:34:21Z)
• 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)

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.