Abstract
Recent methods for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) use rollout diversity to improve reasoning performance or training efficiency. Despite these gains, the extent to which differences among correct-answer rollouts reflect useful alternative reasoning or unresolved errors remains poorly understood. We investigate this question through a blind paired analysis of a model trained with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), comparing the highest- and lowest-agreement correct-answer traces for the same problem. Across 126 pairs, low-agreement traces have more spurious reasoning than high-agreement traces (35% vs. 22%), including internal inconsistencies and misuse of problem conditions. Based on these findings, we propose RoAR (Rollout-Agreement Reward), which adds reasoning-level agreement to GRPO's rewards for verified-correct rollouts. RoAR computes this signal from existing on-policy rollout groups, requiring no human-written rationales, additional sampling, or separately trained process evaluator. On five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, the 1.5B GRPO-RoAR model reaches 55.5% mean pass@1 under zero-shot evaluation using 7K training examples, exceeding GRPO and GRPO-CARE by 6.0 and 5.5 percentage points. A separate blind audit of 100 problems answered correctly by all four 1.5B models finds spurious rates of 18% for GRPO-RoAR, 32% for GRPO, 27% for GRPO-CARE, and 37% for DRA-GRPO. Our findings identify reasoning validity as an important consideration when using rollout differences to guide learning. Our code is available at this https URL.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.34951
