Jul 2026· Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering· pp. 1-4· 0 citations· 16 references
Computer Science
TL;DR
This work investigates the importance of including the model's reasoning trace in the generated responses during both training and inference by systematically omitting it from one of the phases and shows that including the reasoning, specifically during inference, has a positive effect on the overall translation quality.
Abstract
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has been established as a viable paradigm for the post-training of Large Language Models (LLMs), including downstream tasks, such as Neural Machine Translation (NMT). With the latest research indicating that RLVR could be the preferred training method for translating legal documents due to the induced reasoning capabilities, it raises the question whether it is really attributed to the reasoning or more generally to the training paradigm. We investigate the importance of including the model's reasoning trace in the generated responses during both training and inference by systematically omitting it from one of the phases. Our experiments show that including the reasoning, specifically during inference, has a positive effect on the overall translation quality. Furthermore, we recognise that the reasoning leads to an increase in output tokens, hence we study the cost-quality tradeoff between the increased computational demands and the improved translation quality.
The results show that the quality of small ``base'' models can be greatly enhanced, and that reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards can be applied to NMT in the legal domain and surpasses the translation quality of supervised fine-tuning.
Aixiu An, Michael Jungo, Eloi Eynard et al.· 0 citations
This work uses classic instruction tuning, supervised fine-tuning without reasoning traces, on the RLM to improve RLM performance in both verifiable and hard-to-verify domains, including coding and text summarization, while preserving RLM capabilities across other domains.
Yuanning Feng, Niels Mündler-Sasahara, Mark Vero et al.· 0 citations
This work systematize the RL-for-LLM paradigm and provides a compute-centric analysis of prominent post-training algorithmic frameworks: Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO), Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), as well as their variants, and develops a taxonomy of intra- and inter-model parallelism strategies for RL-for-LLMs.
Maciej Besta, Leonard Schmidt, Lara Nonino et al.· 0 citations
Although reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has improved the performance of large language models (LLMs) across a variety of reasoning tasks, there is significant debate as to whether RLVR expands the reasoning capability boundary, or just improves sampling efficiency. In this paper, we investigate the nature of test-time exploration in RLVR-trained LLMs by employing controlled maze-solving experiments and extracting a tree structure from mathematical reasoning traces (BODHI-Trees) based on semantic equivalence. This helps us delineate between entropy arising from stylistic variations and genuine inferential branching. Our findings demonstrate that the policy entropy collapse observed in RLVR models is not merely syntactic, and is accompanied by a significant reduction in semantic branching entropy. While RLVR improves adherence to environmental constraints and backtracking capabilities, it constricts the space of continuations; we provide evidence suggesting that this might be responsible for the sample efficiency gains of RLVR, albeit at the cost of genuine rollout diversity.
Soumadeep Saha, Krish Sharma, Akshay Chaturvedi et al.· 1 citation
This thesis proposes a unified two-axis framework that organizes SFT and RL methods along a data axis (off-policy to on-policy) and a loss function axis (positive-only to positive-plus-negative to GRPO) and enables controlled ablations of individual components.
G. Kim, Chair Chenyan Xiong, Aditi Raghunathan· 0 citations
Reinforcement learning (RL) has become central to improving large language models (LLMs) on complex reasoning tasks, yet RL post-training is largely studied in isolation from the pretraining that precedes it. As a result, two basic questions remain open: (1) how do pretraining choices (model size, data) shape the returns to RL compute, and (2) what does RL actually do to the model? These questions are difficult to study in the standard LLM setting: pretraining corpora are vast and uncontrolled, making it hard to attribute behaviors to pretraining versus RL, and systematic compute sweeps across both stages are prohibitively expensive. To address these challenges, we use chess as a controlled testbed for studying reasoning across the full pretraining-to-post-training pipeline. We follow the standard LLM training pipeline by pretraining language models from 5M to 1B parameters on human chess games, supervised fine-tuning on synthetic reasoning traces, and running RL on chess puzzles with verifiable rewards. Using this framework, we find that the post-RL performance at given RL compute level is well-predicted from the pretraining loss, and slope of the RL reward curves improves approximately linearly with the pretraining tokens. Beyond scaling, we find that RL does not simply sharpen the SFT policy: on easy puzzles it amplifies correct moves the SFT policy already preferred, while on hard puzzles it surfaces correct moves that were nearly absent under SFT. We further test whether our findings transfer beyond chess by training a 1B language model on math-domain text, where the same predictive pattern emerges: longer-pretrained checkpoints reach higher post-RL performance and improve faster under RL. In sum, we provide a quantitative account of the pretraining-to-RL interface and a controlled testbed for studying the science of reasoning across the full pretraining-to-post-training pipeline.
Jingyan Shen, Ang Li, Salman Rahman et al.· 0 citations
