Reinforcement learning for vision-language math reasoning starves under sparse reward: on a pool of 20,830 visual-math problems where Qwen2-VL-2B answers 3.6% of rollouts correctly, 85-97% of GRPO rollout groups are entirely wrong and contribute zero gradient. We train eleven methods under identical conditions in this regime, each injecting a different prior: text (reference-solution hints), distribution (on-policy distillation from a 7B teacher), and value (a value-pretrained critic with an MSE or HL-Gauss categorical loss). A prior helps exactly when it is delivered: the six arms whose prior effectively reaches the policy separate with no overlap from the remaining five -- the no-prior baseline and four arms whose prior is teacher-capped, gated away, or lost to a mis-parameterized critic -- both on the pooled in-domain metric and on cross-domain transfer (DynaMath). The central finding, however, concerns evaluation: one slice of the in-domain pool -- long used as this project's general-distribution check -- anti-correlates with genuine cross-domain transfer (Spearman rho = -0.74, n = 11 arms, permutation p = 0.011), while the hardest in-domain slice predicts it closely (rho = +0.89, p < 0.001). We attribute the inversion to a near-chance multiple-choice subset that rewards models for not having changed; read through it, the best cross-domain method looked mediocre and the worst looked like the champion. Among the methods, hint-guided exploration -- not UFT's auxiliary loss -- drives hint gains, and replacing the critic's MSE loss with HL-Gauss cross-entropy is worth +14.4 points in-domain. All accuracies are blind-judged, with paired exact tests.
Muon is competitive with AdamW in large-scale pre-training, but its operating regime in reinforcement-learning post-training remains unclear. We map this regime on ALFWorld, a sparse-reward agentic benchmark, using three group-based objectives and Qwen2.5 models from 0.5B to 3B. Under a shared KL and clipping recipe, matched optimizer comparisons and AdamW rate controls trace the usable step-size range. AdamW responds non-monotonically to rate, whereas fan-in Muon remains stable at a more aggressive effective step: at $3 \times 10^{-5}$ it improves late success over an AdamW $10^{-6}$ baseline after correction across rate-metric tests. Its normalized-AUC effect is directionally positive but less uniform; the heuristic-matched lower-rate effect is less consistent, and tuned AdamW nearly matches high-rate Muon at 3B GraphGPO. High-rate Muon applies $3.53 \times$ AdamW's hidden-matrix update RMS; a full-budget RMS-matched control removes the late-success gain. Together, these results identify a recipe-level operating regime in which fan-in Muon supports a more aggressive stable effective step under shared KL and clipping: the margin is largest when optimization headroom remains and contracts near saturation, after AdamW tuning, or under magnitude matching. The scale-matched control ties this spectral effect to Muon's scale convention rather than establishing a universal optimizer ranking. Code is available at https://github.com/x66ccff/verl-muon.