mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2605.03862 ↗First posted 5 May 2026cs.AI cs.CLcited by 1

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reinforcement learning for reasoning

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

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

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reinforcement learning for reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 38 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 May 2026.

Builds on

38 of 43 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoning10 Oct
  2. 2023Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations14 Dec
  3. 2023Let's Verify Step by Step31 May
  4. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model29 May
  5. 2022Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback25 Nov

Other references · 33

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  3. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  4. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  5. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
  6. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
  7. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  8. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  9. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  10. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
  11. 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
  12. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
21 more
  1. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
  2. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,637
  3. 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,211
  4. 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,150
  5. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 2,004
  6. 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,462
  7. 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,391
  8. 2022Program of Thoughts Prompting: Disentangling Computation from Reasoning for Numerical Reasoning Taskscited by 1,076
  9. 2022STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoningcited by 940
  10. 2021Are NLP Models really able to Solve Simple Math Word Problems?cited by 878
  11. 2022PAL: Program-aided Language Modelscited by 652
  12. 2022CodeRL: Mastering Code Generation through Pretrained Models and Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 358
  13. 2024MLLM-Protector: Ensuring MLLM's Safety without Hurting Performancecited by 117
  14. 2023RLTF: Reinforcement Learning from Unit Test Feedbackcited by 114
  15. 2023Execution-based Code Generation using Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 99
  16. 2024Strengthening Multimodal Large Language Model with Bootstrapped Preference Optimizationcited by 75
  17. 2025Failure Makes the Agent Stronger: Enhancing Accuracy through Structured Reflection for Reliable Tool Interactionscited by 12
  18. 2024The Instinctive Bias: Spurious Images lead to Illusion in MLLMscited by 11
  19. 2024Momentum Auxiliary Network for Supervised Local Learningcited by 10
  20. 2025Beyond Words and Pixels: A Benchmark for Implicit World Knowledge Reasoning in Generative Modelscited by 4
  21. 2025MAN++: Scaling Momentum Auxiliary Network for Supervised Local Learning in Vision Taskscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Reasoning Arena: Trace Tournaments When Verifiable Rewards Fall Short
  2. 2026Splicing Hints into Reasoning Traces: Learning from Demonstrator Failures
  3. 2025ConciseRL: Conciseness-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Efficient Reasoning Models
  4. 2026Outcome Rewards Do Not Guarantee Verifiable or Causally Important Reasoning
  5. 2026Proof-Carrying Cognition: Closing the Verification Gap with Reality-Settled Reward
  6. 2026Cliff: Learning Process Rewards from the First Mistake
  7. 2025Reasoning Vectors: Transferring Chain-of-Thought Capabilities via Task Arithmetic
  8. 2026InfoDensity: Rewarding Information-Dense Traces for Efficient Reasoning