# RLVP: Penalize the Path, Reward the Outcome

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.07435 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.07435/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 42 of its 52 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 42)

- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14476/) (2025)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20783/) (2025)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15124/) (2024)
- [Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13837/) (2025)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [Group Sequence Policy Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18071/) (2025)
- [Self-Rewarding Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10020/) (2024)
- [τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07982/) (2025)
- [Group-in-Group Policy Optimization for LLM Agent Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10978/) (2025)
- [MiniF2F: a cross-system benchmark for formal Olympiad-level mathematics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.00110/) (2021)
- [ToolRL: Reward is All Tool Learning Needs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13958/) (2025)
- [The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.03544/) (2022)
- [Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning in Large Language Models with One Training Example](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.20571/) (2025)
- [SWE-smith: Scaling Data for Software Engineering Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.21798/) (2025)
- [Learning to Reason under Off-Policy Guidance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.14945/) (2025)
- [Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.08146/) (2024)
- [SWE-RL: Advancing LLM Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning on Open Software Evolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18449/) (2025)
- [ArCHer: Training Language Model Agents via Hierarchical Multi-Turn RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.19446/) (2024)
- [Spurious Rewards: Rethinking Training Signals in RLVR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.10947/) (2025)
- [Free Process Rewards without Process Labels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.01981/) (2024)
- [A Sober Look at Progress in Language Model Reasoning: Pitfalls and Paths to Reproducibility](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.07086/) (2025)
- [Reinforcing Multi-Turn Reasoning in LLM Agents via Fine-Grained Reward Structure and Credit Assignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11821/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Never Stop Thinking: Continuous-Time Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.17416/) (2026)
- [Policy-Verified Self-Training: Learning Agent Compliance from Verifiable Policy Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.19372/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Agents acting on our behalf in the real world (e.g. placing phone calls) must learn online from costly, often irreversible interactions rather than cheap simulator steps. Two things follow. First, deployability depends on the path, not only the outcome. An agent must respect outcome-neutral constraints such as not repeatedly calling an unresponsive user, respecting business hours, or completing required authentication constraints that outcome-based rewards cannot express, since violating them frequently improves apparent success. Second, because each interaction is expensive, the agent must learn efficiently from very few examples. Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) is blind to both challenges: it optimizes solely on the outcome and wastes expensive rollouts on all-fail groups where group-relative advantage collapses to zero. Attempts to densify supervision by rewarding progress target the hard-to-verify direction. In contrast, real agentic environments can cheaply detect bad moves. Since group-relative advantage is equivalent to within-group variance, a dense signal helps only when it supplies variance the outcome lacks. A verifiable penalty on the path meets this condition reliably, while a progress potential helps only where partial progress is reachable. The resulting recipe "penalize the path, reward the outcome" achieves high task success with near-zero violations, where outcome-only training violates constraints on nearly every episode. We provide four design rules for effective penalties, including avoidance of the inaction trap that arises when a penalty is used in isolation.