FlowingFlowing
← Back to all development cases
This case was judged by an anonymized AI reviewer and has not been independently reviewed by people; inspect the draft, cards, and both outputs to assess it.
AutocompleteAbout the same124 / 280 · beu-31015c7a2779f913

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

Computer science · 2501.12948v1

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we compare writing with and without cards?

At the same writing position, the same model produces one first result with cards and one without. All 280 pairs enter the overall anonymized review, which assesses whether a decision not to continue fits the draft.

Overall: 138 with-card wins, 26 ties, 107 no-card wins, 5 pairs where neither was usable, and 4 inconclusive judgments. Both sides wrote text in 218 pairs; 48 had a deliberate stop and 14 included an invalid output.

SAME DRAFT · WITH OR WITHOUT CARDS

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED VERSIONS

SHARED BY BOTH

Draft, writing task, and generation model

A · With cards

Relevant literature cards supplied

B · Without cards

No literature cards supplied

Generation model

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Anonymized AI judge

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Review again with the answer order swapped

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The AI judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received cards.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are positions and cards selected?

We selected 40 writing positions in each of seven fields, for 280 comparisons. The position and relevant literature cards were set before each comparison, so both versions began from the same draft.

The main result retains every frozen position, including places where cards might not add a useful next move. This avoids selecting cases based on their outputs, but 49% describes the whole cohort, not a win rate where evidence clearly had an opportunity to help. This cohort did not record that opportunity label for each position before generation, so those two groups cannot yet be separated reliably.

CARD USE · 140/280

Reported card use in continuations with text

The model reports whether a card affected its continuation. In 140 of 280 tests it produced continuation text and reported card use. The previous count of 150 included 10 cases without continuation text and has been corrected.

COMPARISON · 70 / 7 / 30

Which written version was better?

Of the 107 reported-use cases where both versions produced text, the blinded AI judge preferred the with-card version 70 times, found 7 about the same, and preferred the without-card version 30 times.

How are the two table percentages calculated?

ADOPTION COVERAGE

140reported use with text
÷
280all positions
=
50%

WITH-CARD VERSION PREFERRED

70with cards better
÷
107comparable tests
=
65%

The percentages use different groups: 50% counts continuations with text reporting card use among all 280 tests; 65% covers the 107 such cases with text on both sides. The generating model reports card use, while an anonymized AI judge compares writing quality.

Card use is self-reported by the generator. The anonymized AI judge sees the draft and source snippets, so source-aware preference remains possible; there was no independent human review. The overall result describes these 280 frozen positions, not a win probability for any writing task.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

Introduction / methods

duce inference-time scaling by increasing the length of the Chain-of- Thought reasoning process. This approach has achieved significant improvements in various reasoning tasks, such as mathematics, coding, and scientific reasoning. However, the challenge of effective test-time scaling remains an open question for the research community. Several prior works have explored various approaches, including process-based reward models (Lightman et al., 2023; Uesato et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023), reinforcement learning (Kumar et al., 2024), and search algorithms such as Monte Carlo Tree Search and Beam Search (Feng et al., 2024; Trinh et al., 2024; Xin et al., 2024). However, none of these methods has achieved general reasoning performance comparable to OpenAI’s o1 series models. In this paper, we take the first step toward improving language model reasoning capabilities using pure reinforcement learning (RL). Our goal is to explore the potential of LLMs to develop reasoning capabilities without any supervised data, focusing on their self-evolution through a pure RL process. Specifically, we use DeepSeek-V3-Base as the base model and employ GRPO (Shao et al., 2024) as the RL framework to

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionOverall AI review: About the same

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Read overall AI review rationale

A = without cards · B = with cards

Both outputs are identical and provide a suitable continuation. The sentence completes the thought by explaining what GRPO is used for (optimizing reasoning behavior through outcome-derived rewards), which fits the paper's stated goal of using pure RL without supervised data. The phrase 'verifiable outcomes' aligns well with the draft's emphasis on self-evolution through RL and matches the general approach described in the sources (e.g., ReFT's use of ground-truth answers for rewards). The continuation is appropriately scoped—specific enough to be meaningful but not making unsupported claims about specific results, benchmarks, or model behaviors. The draft clearly needs continuation (the sentence is mid-thought after 'employ GRPO...'), so 'complete' would be inappropriate. Both outputs correctly provide text rather than abstaining.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

optimize the model's reasoning behavior through reward signals derived from verifiable outcomes.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · Offline Reinforcement Learning for LLM Multi-Step Reasoning

Improving the multi-step reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) with offline reinforcement learning (RL) is essential for quickly adapting them to complex tasks. While Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has shown promise in aligning LLMs with human preferences, it is less suitable for m…

Read full passage excerpt

Improving the multi-step reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) with offline reinforcement learning (RL) is essential for quickly adapting them to complex tasks. While Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has shown promise in aligning LLMs with human preferences, it is less suitable for multi-step reasoning tasks because (1) DPO relies on paired preference data, which is not readily available for multi-step reasoning tasks, and (2) it treats all tokens uniformly, making it ineffective for credit assignment in multi-step reasoning tasks, which often come with sparse reward. In this work, we propose OREO (Offline Reasoning Optimization), an offline RL method for enhancing LLM multi-step reasoning. Building on insights from previous works of maximum entropy reinforcement learning, it jointly learns a policy model and value function by optimizing the soft Bellman Equation. We show in principle that it reduces the need to collect pairwise data and enables better credit assignment …

Card 2 · Proof Flow: Preliminary Study on Generative Flow Network Language Model Tuning for Formal Reasoning

Reasoning is a fundamental substrate for solving novel and complex problems. Deliberate efforts in learning and developing frameworks around System 2 reasoning have made great strides, yet problems of sufficient complexity remain largely out of reach for open models. To address this gap, we examine…

Read full passage excerpt

Reasoning is a fundamental substrate for solving novel and complex problems. Deliberate efforts in learning and developing frameworks around System 2 reasoning have made great strides, yet problems of sufficient complexity remain largely out of reach for open models. To address this gap, we examine the potential of Generative Flow Networks as a fine-tuning method for LLMs to unlock advanced reasoning capabilities. In this paper, we present a proof of concept in the domain of formal reasoning, specifically in the Neural Theorem Proving (NTP) setting, where proofs specified in a formal language such as Lean can be deterministically and objectively verified. Unlike classical reward-maximization reinforcement learning, which frequently over-exploits high-reward actions and fails to effectively explore the state space, GFlowNets have emerged as a promising approach for sampling compositional objects, improving generalization, and enabling models to maintain diverse hypotheses. Our early res …

Card 3 · ReFT: Reasoning with Reinforced Fine-Tuning

One way to enhance the reasoning capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is to conduct Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) using Chain-of-Thought (CoT) annotations. This approach does not show sufficiently strong generalization ability, however, because the training only relies on the given CoT data. In…

Read full passage excerpt

One way to enhance the reasoning capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is to conduct Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) using Chain-of-Thought (CoT) annotations. This approach does not show sufficiently strong generalization ability, however, because the training only relies on the given CoT data. In math problem-solving, for example, there is usually only one annotated reasoning path for each question in the training data. Intuitively, it would be better for the algorithm to learn from multiple annotated reasoning paths given a question. To address this issue, we propose a simple yet effective approach called Reinforced Fine-Tuning (ReFT) to enhance the generalizability of learning LLMs for reasoning, with math problem-solving as an example. ReFT first warmups the model with SFT, and then employs on-line reinforcement learning, specifically the PPO algorithm in this paper, to further fine-tune the model, where an abundance of reasoning paths are automatically sampled given the question …

Card 4 · Improving Multi-Step Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models with Direct Advantage Policy Optimization

The role of reinforcement learning (RL) in enhancing the reasoning of large language models (LLMs) is becoming increasingly significant. Despite the success of RL in many scenarios, there are still many challenges in improving the reasoning of LLMs. One challenge is the sparse reward, which makes op…

Read full passage excerpt

The role of reinforcement learning (RL) in enhancing the reasoning of large language models (LLMs) is becoming increasingly significant. Despite the success of RL in many scenarios, there are still many challenges in improving the reasoning of LLMs. One challenge is the sparse reward, which makes optimization difficult for RL and necessitates a large amount of data samples. Another challenge stems from the inherent instability of RL, particularly when using Actor-Critic (AC) methods to derive optimal policies, which often leads to unstable training processes. To address these issues, we introduce Direct Advantage Policy Optimization (DAPO), an novel step-level offline RL algorithm. Unlike standard alignment that rely solely outcome rewards to optimize policies (such as DPO), DAPO employs a critic function to predict the reasoning accuracy at each step, thereby generating dense signals to refine the generation strategy. Additionally, the Actor and Critic components in DAPO are trained i …

Card 5 · Training Large Language Models for Reasoning through Reverse Curriculum Reinforcement Learning

In this paper, we propose R$^3$: Learning Reasoning through Reverse Curriculum Reinforcement Learning (RL), a novel method that employs only outcome supervision to achieve the benefits of process supervision for large language models. The core challenge in applying RL to complex reasoning is to iden…

Read full passage excerpt

In this paper, we propose R$^3$: Learning Reasoning through Reverse Curriculum Reinforcement Learning (RL), a novel method that employs only outcome supervision to achieve the benefits of process supervision for large language models. The core challenge in applying RL to complex reasoning is to identify a sequence of actions that result in positive rewards and provide appropriate supervision for optimization. Outcome supervision provides sparse rewards for final results without identifying error locations, whereas process supervision offers step-wise rewards but requires extensive manual annotation. R$^3$ overcomes these limitations by learning from correct demonstrations. Specifically, R$^3$ progressively slides the start state of reasoning from a demonstration's end to its beginning, facilitating easier model exploration at all stages. Thus, R$^3$ establishes a step-wise curriculum, allowing outcome supervision to offer step-level signals and precisely pinpoint errors. Using Llama2-7 …

Model-reported card use

The model did not report that any card materially affected this completion.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

optimize the model's reasoning behavior through reward signals derived from verifiable outcomes.

Earlier card-use comparison

The earlier diagnostic compared only cases with reported card use and text on both sides; its scope differs from the overall AI review above.

This case does not have both with-card continuation text and a model-reported use record. It remains among all 280 tests but does not enter the reported-use comparison.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.