Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.11064

Measuring and Mitigating Solution Mode Collapse in RLVR

Abstract

A language model (LM) can usually answer the same question in more than one way, but reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is indifferent to which correct answer a model produces. A solution will earn the same reward whether it is the thousandth copy of a familiar answer or one the model has never produced before. Yet, there is potential value in having the model retain multiple correct solutions as it is trained. For instance, multiple modes may give users a choice and provide problem-solving strategies that improve overall model performance. Here, we introduce ModeBench, a benchmark of multi-solution tasks in which the verifier returns both correctness and mode discovered. We then use ModeBench to measure how solution diversity changes under RLVR post-training. We find that RLVR post-training concentrates probability onto fewer correct modes even as accuracy holds or improves, and moreover, that frontier models are already highly concentrated. We then introduce our solution, Re:Max, which stores one verified example per discovered mode in a replay buffer and trains on those stored modes uniformly. A solution found once is, therefore, practiced as often as one found repeatedly. Across three model scales, two RL objectives, and harder task constructions, replay improves both how often a policy succeeds and how many different ways it can succeed.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Liv G. d'Aliberti, Marwa Abdulhai, Sofiia Druchyna, Peter Henderson, Manoel Horta Ribeiro. 2026-10-09. Measuring and Mitigating Solution Mode Collapse in RLVR. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.11064

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Are EEG Sequences Time Series? EEG Classification with Time Series Models and Joint Subject Training

As with most other data domains, EEG data analysis relies on rich domain-specific preprocessing. Beyond such preprocessing, machine learners would hope to deal with such data as with any other time series data. For EEG classification many models have been developed with layer types and architectures we typically do not see in time series classification. Furthermore, typically separate models for each individual subject are learned, not one model for all of them. In this paper, we systematically study the differences between EEG classification models and generic time series classification models. We describe three different model setups to deal with EEG data from different subjects, subject-specific models (most EEG literature), subject-agnostic models and subject-conditional models. In experiments on three datasets, we demonstrate that off-the-shelf time series classification models trained per subject perform close to EEG classification models, but that do not quite reach the performance of domain-specific modeling. Additionally, we combine time-series models with subject embeddings to train one joint subject-conditional classifier on all subjects. The resulting models are competitive with dedicated EEG models in 2 out of 3 datasets, even outperforming all EEG methods on one of them.

cs.LG↗

The Fenchel-Young Generalization of Bayesian Principles

Conjugate Bayes plays a key role in machine learning, ensuring computationally simple posterior updates. We generalize the variational principle behind this computation by using the Fenchel-Young (FY) inequality, which lets us define a generalized evidence lower bound beyond the KL geometry, and at equality, characterizes new generalized posteriors. A generalized notion of conjugacy follows, defined as closure of prior-potential families that are affine under translation by the loss. We show that such families not only preserve additive canonical updating, but also posterior inference with parameter-dependent supports and tuneably heavy tails. This combination is not feasible with standard conjugate Bayes. We derive a new FY generalization of expectation maximization (EM), which recovers classical and Hard EM, and amortized versions. We show examples, including generalized Bayesian linear regression with closed-form bounded support and heavy-tailed posteriors, and a Gaussian mixture with sparse cluster assignments.

cs.LG↗

Fragility-aware Classification for Risk Characterization and Robust Learning

Classification models play a central role in data-driven decision-making applications such as medical diagnosis, recommendation systems, and risk assessment. Traditional performance metrics, such as accuracy and AUC, quantify classification errors and pairwise ranking performance but do not account for the magnitude of errors, i.e., the risk of confident misjudgments. This limitation is particularly consequential in safety-critical and cost-sensitive settings, where overconfident errors can lead to severe outcomes. To address this issue, we propose the Fragility Index (FI), a novel performance metric that evaluates classifiers from a risk-averse perspective by capturing the tail risk of confident misjudgments. We formulate FI within a robust satisficing (RS) framework to quantify classifier sensitivity under distributional uncertainty. Building on this, we develop a tractable surrogate-based training framework and establish provable bounds connecting training fragility to ranking-error FI. We further derive tractable reformulations for a broad class of loss functions, including cross-entropy, hinge-type, and Lipschitz losses, and identify specific conditions under which these reformulations are exact. We also introduce an FI-induced regularizer for deep neural networks. Empirical results on real-world medical diagnosis tasks demonstrate that FI complements existing metrics by revealing error tail risk not reflected in accuracy or AUC. FI-based models achieve competitive predictive performance while generally attaining lower FI. In the simulated human--AI diagnostic workflow, they also achieve lower average operational costs than empirical risk minimization.

cs.LG↗