Don't Let Gains FADE: Breaking Down Policy Gradient Weights in RL

Reinforcement learning post-training dramatically improves LLM reasoning, but suffers from training instability and diversity collapse. Advantage functions offer an appealing fix: they reshape the training objective, reweight which rollouts drive learning, and are trivial to implement. Yet a proliferation of methods makes it unclear which advantage to use and when. We cut through the confusion with a unifying framework that decomposes any advantage into its positive and negative gradient mass along two orthogonal axes. On the sign axis, imbalanced updates collapse either entropy or weight geometry. On the difficulty axis, hard-problem focus sharpens signal but costs sample size. Both trade-offs shift during training: exploration favors balance and hard focus; exploitation favors suppression and medium focus. This motivates FADE (Focal Advantage with Dynamic Entropy), a self-adapting advantage that reads training dynamics to schedule the gradient weight automatically. FADE reaches peak pass@1 20k steps earlier than the best static baseline at the 7B scale and 2k steps earlier at the 32B , while achieving the best accuracy-diversity trade-off across all pass@k on LiveCodeBench and AIME.

Understanding Diversity Collapse in RLVR via the Lens of Overtraining

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a key approach for enhancing the reasoning abilities of large language models. However, RLVR often suffers from \emph{diversity collapse}: Pass@$1$ improves while high-$k$ Pass@$k$ degrades, which is viewed as a narrowing of the model's reasoning boundary. We formalize this diversity collapse through the lens of \emph{overtraining}: once a problem's contribution to the reference metric has effectively saturated, further updates no longer expand what the model can solve but still concentrate probability mass on the trajectories favored by on-policy sampling. Under a standard setup with few rollouts per problem, even a single observed success places a problem in a nearly saturated regime for high-$k$ Pass@$k$, so most updates in standard RLVR are overtraining from the boundary perspective. This perspective also suggests a reading of whether RLVR can expand the model's reasoning abilities beyond the base model: since RLVR is structurally biased against high-$k$ Pass@$k$, its aggregate decline does not by itself mean that no new reasoning gains occurred. Interventionally, restricting updates to problems with zero observed success lifts Pass@$256$ above the base model on difficult benchmarks; observationally, a non-trivial fraction of initially unsolvable problems become solvable during standard RLVR training. Building on these findings, we propose \emph{Bayesian Boundary Gating} (BBG), which redirects optimization away from overtraining by estimating each problem's marginal contribution to the reasoning boundary. Across multiple reasoning benchmarks, BBG improves average Pass@$k$ across a wide range of $k$.

Binary Rewards and Reinforcement Learning: Fundamental Challenges

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a standard approach for improving reasoning in language models, yet models trained with RLVR often suffer from diversity collapse: while single-sample accuracy improves, multi-sample coverage degrades, sometimes falling below the base model. We provide a structural account of this phenomenon grounded in the properties of binary rewards. Binary rewards create a fundamental degeneracy for policy gradient methods: the set of distributions maximizing expected reward is infinite, with no distinguished element. KL-control resolves this degeneracy by selecting, in the limit $β\to 0$, the filtered model $p_*:=a(\cdot\mid\mathcal{Y}_1)$ -- the base model conditioned on validity -- which is the unique fully valid distribution closest to the base model in KL divergence. This selection operates through a nontrivial asymmetry: the tilted distribution $p_{[β]}\propto a(y)\,e^{v(y)/β}$ converges to $p_*$ in forward KL as $β\to 0$, yet $p_*$ cannot serve as a direct optimization target because $\mathrm{KL}(q\,\|\,p_*)$ is infinite for any full-support policy $q$. We develop explicit formulas relating the hyperparameter $β$ to the more interpretable target validity rate $μ$. Under model misspecification -- the typical practical regime -- the pressure to decrease $β$ drives the optimizer toward highly concentrated distributions over a small number of valid outputs, collapsing toward ever fewer as $β$ decreases, rather than toward the filtered model. We illustrate this mechanism on a toy autoregressive experiment and discuss how alternative divergences that target $p_*$ directly -- as pursued empirically by \citet{kruszewski_whatever_2026} -- avoid this failure mode by rewarding coverage of $p_*$'s support rather than concentration on high-validity outputs.