On the optimization dynamics of RLVR: Gradient gap and step size thresholds
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), which uses simple binary feedback to post-train large language models, has found significant empirical success. However, a principled understanding of why it works is lacking. This paper builds a theoretical foundation for RLVR by analyzing its training process at both the full-response (trajectory) and token levels. Central to our analysis is a new quantity called the Gradient Gap, which formalizes the direction of improvement from low-reward to high-reward regions of the response space. We prove that convergence critically depends on aligning the update direction with this Gradient Gap. Moreover, we derive a sharp step-size threshold based on the magnitude of the Gradient Gap: below it, learning converges, whereas above it, performance collapses. Our theory further predicts how the critical step size must scale with response length and the success rate, thereby explaining why practical heuristics such as length normalization improve stability and showing that, with a fixed learning rate, the success rate can stagnate strictly below 100%. Importantly, our theory holds flexibly for any policy-gradient algorithm and so characterizes the dynamics of popular approaches such as REINFORCE and GRPO. We validate these predictions through controlled bandit simulations and language model experiments on post-training Qwen2.5-Math-7B with GRPO.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2025.
Builds on
29 of 49 references.
References · 29
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
- 2025DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scalecited by 2,810
- 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,150
- 2025Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspectivecited by 1,345
- 2025Kimi k1.5: Scaling Reinforcement Learning with LLMscited by 1,210
- 2025Group Sequence Policy Optimizationcited by 835
- 2025Process Reinforcement through Implicit Rewardscited by 504
- 2023Principled Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback from Pairwise or K-wise Comparisonscited by 247
- 2020A Finite Time Analysis of Two Time-Scale Actor Critic Methodscited by 122
17 more
- 2022On the Convergence Rates of Policy Gradient Methodscited by 119
- 2025Self-Evolving Curriculum for LLM Reasoningcited by 112
- 2021Provable Benefits of Actor-Critic Methods for Offline Reinforcement Learningcited by 110
- 2025Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards: GRPO's Effective Loss, Dynamics, and Success Amplificationcited by 110
- 2021Dueling RL: Reinforcement Learning with Trajectory Preferencescited by 106
- 2023Is RLHF More Difficult than Standard RL?cited by 96
- 2025Outcome-based Exploration for LLM Reasoningcited by 83
- 2022Human-in-the-loop: Provably Efficient Preference-based Reinforcement Learning with General Function Approximationcited by 81
- 2024Offline Reinforcement Learning for LLM Multi-Step Reasoningcited by 54
- 2025Is a Good Foundation Necessary for Efficient Reinforcement Learning? The Computational Role of the Base Model in Explorationcited by 36
- 2025SPEED-RL: Faster Training of Reasoning Models via Online Curriculum Learningcited by 29
- 2025Asymmetric REINFORCE for off-Policy Reinforcement Learning: Balancing positive and negative rewardscited by 29
- 2024Exploration-Driven Policy Optimization in RLHF: Theoretical Insights on Efficient Data Utilizationcited by 25
- 2025Accelerating RL for LLM Reasoning with Optimal Advantage Regressioncited by 24
- 2025PILAF: Optimal Human Preference Sampling for Reward Modelingcited by 20
- 2025Trajectory Bellman Residual Minimization: A Simple Value-Based Method for LLM Reasoningcited by 11
- 2024Taming "data-hungry" reinforcement learning? Stability in continuous state-action spacescited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026Don't Let Gains FADE: Breaking Down Policy Gradient Weights in RLcited by 0
- 2026Trust the Direction, Search the Step: Zero-and-First-Order Methods for LLM Fine-Tuningcited by 0
- 2026How RL Reshapes LLM Reasoning: Transferability, Coverage, and Scaling Lawscited by 0
- 2026Two Clocks: Why Larger Rollout Batches Learn Slower but Fail on Schedule in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewardscited by 0
- 2026Two Clocks: Why Larger Rollout Batches Learn Slower but Fail on Schedule in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards13 Oct 2026
- 2026How RL Reshapes LLM Reasoning: Transferability, Coverage, and Scaling Laws3 Oct 2026
- 2026Trust the Direction, Search the Step: Zero-and-First-Order Methods for LLM Fine-Tuning1 Oct 2026
- 2026Don't Let Gains FADE: Breaking Down Policy Gradient Weights in RL1 Jul 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Linear Dynamics in the RLVR Training of Large Language Models
- 2025The Path Not Taken: RLVR Provably Learns Off the Principals
- 2025Position: The Hidden Costs and Measurement Gaps of Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards
- 2026Not only where, But when: Temporal Scheduling for RLVR
- 2025Variance-Aware Baselines and Adaptive Learning Rates for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards
- 2026Rate or Fate? RLV^varepsilonR: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Noisy Rewards
- 2025The Reasoning Boundary Paradox: How Reinforcement Learning Constrains Language Models
- 2026Delay, Plateau, or Collapse: Evaluating the Impact of Systematic Verification Error on RLVR