Title: Mirage or Method? How Model–Task Alignment Induces Divergent RL Conclusions
Primary area: reinforcement learning
Keywords: reinforcement learning, reasoning

Abstract: Recent advances in applying reinforcement learning (RL) to large language models (LLMs) have led to substantial progress. In particular, a series of remarkable yet often counterintuitive phenomena have been reported in LLMs, exhibiting patterns not typically observed in traditional RL settings. For example, notable claims include that a single training example can match the performance achieved with an entire dataset, that the reward signal does not need to be very accurate, and that training solely with negative samples can match or even surpass sophisticated reward-based methods. However, the precise conditions under which these observations hold—and, critically, when they fail—remain unclear. In this work, we identify a key factor that differentiates RL observations: whether the pretrained model already exhibits strong *Model-Task Alignment*, as measured by pass@k accuracy on the evaluated task. Through a systematic and comprehensive examination of a series of counterintuitive claims, supported by rigorous experimental validation across different model architectures and task domains, our findings show that while standard RL training remains consistently robust across settings, many of these counterintuitive results arise only when the model and task already exhibit strong model-task alignment. In contrast, these techniques fail to drive substantial learning in more challenging regimes, where standard RL methods remain effective.

TL;DR: “RL shortcuts” for LLMs (e.g., one example, noisy/no rewards, negative samples) only work under strong model-task alignment.