Reinforcement Learning without Ground-Truth Solutions can Improve LLMs

Practical Tips

Practical tips and how-to guidance will be added by our editorial team.

中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站将优先为睡眠改善、失眠治疗、助眠方法等高价值文章补充中文说明。

Article Summary

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) for training LLMs typically rely on ground-truth answers to assign rewards, limiting their applicability to tasks where the ground-truth solution is unknown. We introduce a \textbf{R}anking-\textbf{i}nduced \textbf{VER}ifiable framework (RiVER) that trains LLMs on score-based optimization tasks without ground-truth solutions, using deterministic execution feedback as continuous-valued supervision. When applying group-relative RL to such continuous rewards, we identify two key challenges: \emph{scale dominance}, where uncalibrated score magnitudes across test instances distort policy updates, and \emph{frequency dominance}, where repeatedly sampled suboptimal solutions can outweigh rare but stronger candidates. RiVER addresses these challenges with calibrated reward shaping that uses instance-wise comparisons and emphasizes top-ranked solvers while retaining bounded feedback for other valid solutions. We train on 12 AtCoder Heuristic Contest tasks and evaluate on Algorithm Engineering Benchmark (ALE-Bench), LiveCodeBench, and USACO. RiVER advances Qwen3-8B and GLM-Z1-9B-0414 by 8.9\% and 9.4\% in ALE rating rank. More importantly, despite training exclusively on score-based tasks without any ground-truth solutions, RiVER also improves the backbones across exact-solution benchmarks such as LiveCodeBench and USACO by an absolute average improvement of 2.4\% and 3.5\%. By contrast, baselines trained with raw execution scores improve ALE rating but fail to transfer to exact-solution benchmarks. These results suggest that score-based optimization tasks, combined with proper reward calibration, can serve as effective training environments for general coding ability without ground-truth solutions.

Sources & References

• Original source
• Full article (PDF)

Comments