TL;DR
It is asked whether a single success-probability signal can allocate compute more efficiently in both phases on Countdown with Qwen2.5-0.5B.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is bottlenecked by rollout generation, yet many sampled prompts produce saturated groups (all responses correct or all incorrect) whose zero reward variance yields no policy-gradient signal. Existing remedies either oversample a larger candidate pool and discard saturated prompts (dynamic sampling), paying heavy extra rollouts, or predict prompt difficulty before sampling, which is fragile under a shifting policy. We observe that a group's effectiveness is usually decided early, within the first few of its rollouts, so spending a full group on an already-decided prompt is wasteful. We cast per-step rollout collection as a budget-constrained sequential allocation (optimal stopping) problem and introduce SARA (Sequential Adaptive Rollout Allocation). SARA maintains a Beta posterior over each prompt's success rate, evaluates a closed-form predictor of group effectiveness, and applies a two-threshold, SPRT-style rule that commits effective groups, abandons saturated ones after a short probe, and reallocates the freed budget to fresh prompts, without any extra prediction rollouts. We prove abandonment reliability, expected rollout savings, fixed-budget yield dominance, and a link between effective-group yield and the GRPO gradient norm. On mathematical reasoning and planning with 1.5B/3B models on a single GPU, SARA matches DPS (both below the DS oracle) while using 22% fewer rollouts than DS; composing SARA with DPS yields the best accuracy, slightly above DS, at 67% fewer rollouts (near-uniform cost).
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.
TrajVal, a lightweight probe-based estimator that approximates per-task learnability from a short probe run and two endpoint evaluations, is proposed and it is found that learnability is reproducible across independently sampled training contexts and predictive of downstream utility.
Reasoning language models trained with reinforcement learning typically operate under a fixed token budget rather than an explicitly adaptive one, which can lead to over-computation on easy problems and insufficient computation on difficult ones. We study whether a model can learn to allocate its own reasoning effort by choosing, as the first token of its response, one of three modes: \textsc{NoThink} (answer as quickly as possible), \textsc{Short} (brief reasoning), or \textsc{Long} (extended reasoning). The choice is learned inside Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with no separate router, through a shaped reward that makes each mode worthwhile at a different response length, together with hard per-mode token caps that keep the modes distinct. On a 1.5B distilled model trained on MATH, the three modes emerge without collapsing to a single choice, and the brief modes end up more accurate than \textsc{Long}, which shows that the router sorts problems by difficulty rather than at random. Averaged over three seeds, the resulting policy stays close to the base model's accuracy on the held-out MATH500 ($0.782$ vs.\ $0.796$) while cutting the mean response length from $4{,}796$ to $2{,}811$ tokens (a $41\%$ reduction). Interestingly, it also transfers to other benchmarks without retraining, with the largest savings where problems are easier, with for instance 76\% token reduction on GSM8K and at higher accuracy than the baselines at similar response length. In short, we build a reasoning model that adaptively chooses how much to reason for each problem.
VarIance Guided Online Rollout allocation (VIGOR) is proposed which instead of allocating a fixed rollout budget per example, begins with a small number of rollouts for all examples in a batch and iteratively allocates additional rollouts to those with the highest group reward variance until a fixed total rollout budget is reached.
Test-time scaling improves LLM reasoning by using additional inference compute, but wider sampling alone can suffer from diminishing returns: new rollouts often repeat existing answer patterns instead of adding useful reasoning diversity. Verifier-based selection offers an alternative, but its performance depends on the calibration of an external reward model. We propose a verifier-free breadth--depth refinement framework that uses test-time compute to both explore and improve candidate solutions. The method samples multiple independent reasoning rollouts, refines each rollout through iterative self-critique and self-correction, and aggregates the refined answers by majority voting. Breadth preserves diverse initial attempts, while depth repairs local reasoning errors before aggregation. Across AIME24, AIME25, AMC, OlympiadBench, and MATH500, our method consistently improves over greedy decoding, majority voting, verifier-based best-of-$N$, beam search, and lookahead decoding across multiple open-weight models. For instance, with Qwen2.5-1.5B, accuracy increases from the strongest verifier-based baseline to $58.0\%$ on MATH500, and from $25.0\%$ to $32.5\%$ on AMC. These results show that test-time compute can be more effective when used to refine sampled trajectories rather than only to sample more candidates or rely on verifier-guided selection.
