Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspective
Open accessAbstract
DeepSeek-R1-Zero has shown that reinforcement learning (RL) at scale can directly enhance the reasoning capabilities of LLMs without supervised fine-tuning. In this work, we critically examine R1-Zero-like training by analyzing its two core components: base models and RL. We investigate a wide range of base models, including DeepSeek-V3-Base, to understand how pretraining characteristics influence RL performance. Our analysis reveals that DeepSeek-V3-Base already exhibit ''Aha moment'', while Qwen2.5 base models demonstrate strong reasoning capabilities even without prompt templates, suggesting potential pretraining biases. Additionally, we identify an optimization bias in Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), which artificially increases response length (especially for incorrect outputs) during training. To address this, we introduce Dr. GRPO, an unbiased optimization method that improves token efficiency while maintaining reasoning performance. Leveraging these insights, we present a minimalist R1-Zero recipe that achieves 43.3% accuracy on AIME 2024 with a 7B base model, establishing a new state-of-the-art. Our code is available at https://github.com/sail-sg/understand-r1-zero.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Token length increases over the course of training.
“Finally, we observed that token length increases over the course of training, consistent with findings from recent studies (Hu et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025c).”
From Absolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data (2025) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2025c
Followup work are open source attempts to replicate the R1 process or to improve the underlying reinforcement learning algorithm.
“This inspired followup work, which are open source attempts to replicate the R1 process or to improve the underlying reinforcement learning algorithm (Zeng et al., 2025b; Liu et al., 2025c; Cui et al., 2025; Hu et al., 2025; Yu et al., 2025; Yuan et al., 2025).”
From Absolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data (2025) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2025c
Previously, length differences were typically noted between correct and incorrect traces.
“Previously, length differences were typically noted between correct and incorrect traces (Liu et al., 2025c).”
From Absolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data (2025) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2025c
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- Arash Ahmadian, Chris Cremer, Matthias Gall´ e, Marzieh Fadaee, Julia Kreutzer, Olivier Pietquin, Ahmet ¨ Ust¨ un, and Sara Hooker. Back to basics: Revisiting reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14740 , 2024. · arXiv
- Loubna Ben Allal, Anton Lozhkov, Elie Bakouch, Gabriel Mart´ ın Bl´ azquez, Guilherme Penedo, Lewis Tunstall, Andr´ es Marafioti, Hynek Kydl´ ıˇ cek, Agust´ ın Piqueres Lajar´ ın, Vaibhav Srivastav, et al. Smollm2: When smol goes big-data-centric training of a small language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02737 , 2025. · arXiv
- Marcin Andrychowicz, Anton Raichuk, Piotr Sta´ nczyk, Manu Orsini, Sertan Girgin, Rapha¨ el Marinier, Leonard Hussenot, Matthieu Geist, Olivier Pietquin, Marcin Michalski, et al. What matters for on-policy deep actor-critic methods? a large-scale study. In International conference on learning representations , 2021.
- Xingyu Chen, Jiahao Xu, Tian Liang, Zhiwei He, Jianhui Pang, Dian Yu, Linfeng Song, Qiuzhi Liu, Mengfei Zhou, Zhuosheng Zhang, et al. Do not think that much for 2+ 3=? on the overthinking of o1-like llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.21187 , 2024. · arXiv
- Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017.
- Ganqu Cui, Lifan Yuan, Zefan Wang, Hanbin Wang, Wendi Li, Bingxiang He, Yuchen Fan, Tianyu Yu, Qixin Xu, Weize Chen, et al. Process reinforcement through implicit rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01456 , 2025. · arXiv
- Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , 2024. · arXiv
- Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 , 2025. · arXiv
- Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Leng Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, et al. Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14008 , 2024. · arXiv
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874 , 2021. · arXiv
- Jian Hu, Xibin Wu, Zilin Zhu, Xianyu, Weixun Wang, Dehao Zhang, and Yu Cao. Openrlhf: An easy-to-use, scalable and high-performance rlhf framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11143 , 2024. · arXiv
- Natasha Jaques, Asma Ghandeharioun, Judy Hanwen Shen, Craig Ferguson, Agata Lapedriza, Noah Jones, Shixiang Gu, and Rosalind Picard. Way off-policy batch deep reinforcement learning of implicit human preferences in dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.00456 , 2019. · arXiv
- Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, Shengyi Huang, Hamish Ivison, Faeze Brahman, Lester James V Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, et al. T \ ' ulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124 , 2024. · arXiv
- Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, et al. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:3843-3857, 2022.
- Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437 , 2024. · arXiv
- John Schulman, Philipp Moritz, Sergey Levine, Michael Jordan, and Pieter Abbeel. Highdimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02438 , 2015. · arXiv
- John Schulman, Xi Chen, and Pieter Abbeel. Equivalence between policy gradients and soft q-learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.06440 , 2017a. · arXiv
- John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 , 2017b. · arXiv
- Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300 , 2024. · arXiv
- Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19256 , 2024. · arXiv
- Mohammad Shoeybi, Mostofa Patwary, Raul Puri, Patrick LeGresley, Jared Casper, and Bryan Catanzaro. Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08053 , 2019. · arXiv
- Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul F Christiano. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:3008-3021, 2020.
- Richard S. Sutton and Andrew G. Barto. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction . The MIT Press, second edition, 2018.
- An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. Qwen2.5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115 , 2024a. · arXiv
- An Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bofei Gao, Bowen Yu, Chengpeng Li, Dayiheng Liu, Jianhong Tu, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, et al. Qwen2.5-math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via self-improvement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12122 , 2024b. · arXiv
- Edward Yeo, Yuxuan Tong, Morry Niu, Graham Neubig, and Xiang Yue. Demystifying long chain-of-thought reasoning in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03373 , 2025. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey of Large Language Models
Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Dong, Z., Hou, Y., Zhang, B., Min, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, P., et al. (2026) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3 · Cited by 2,093 · see citing works
Self-citationAbsolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data
Zhao, A., Wu, Y., Yue, Y., Wu, T., Xu, Q., Yue, Y., Lin, M., Wang, S., Wu, Q., Zheng, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationDoes Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?
Yue, Y., Chen, Z., Lu, R., Zhao, A., Wang, Z., Yue, Y., Song, S., & Huang, G. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.13837 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“5-7B-Base and trained using the Oat-Zero framework, for further comparison (Liu et al., 2025b).”
Reasoning or Memorization? Unreliable Results of Reinforcement Learning Due to Data Contamination
Wu, M., Zhang, Z., Dong, Q., Xi, Z., Zhao, J., Jin, S., Fan, X., Zhou, Y., Lv, H., Zhang, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.10532 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“• Mv-incorrect : uses the majority-voted incorrect labels from the model, assigning a reward of 1 when the model output matches an incorrect label, and 0 otherwise.”
From Harm to Help: Turning Reasoning In-Context Demos into Assets for Reasoning LMs
Wang, H., Liang, W., Fu, Z., Zheng, N., Zhang, Y., Tong, Y., Zhu, T., Jiang, H., Li, C., Wu, J., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.23196
“…LLMs (RLMs) (Guo et al., 2025; OpenAI, 2024; Yang et al., 2025), especially those trained with reinforcement learning with verifier rewards (RLVR) (Zheng et al., 2025a; Yu et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025b; Zhou et al., 2025), reveal a counterintuitive phenomenon: few-shot CoT can hurt performance.”
Just-in-Time Memory: Learning to Curate Task-Adaptive Memory for LLM Agents
Zhou, Y., Li, Y., Liu, Z. L., Yavuz, S., & Joty, S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.27334
Self-citationSWE-Master: Unleashing the Potential of Software Engineering Agents via Post-Training
Song, H., Huang, L., Sun, S., Jiang, J., Le, R., Cheng, D., Chen, G., Hu, Y., Chen, Z., Jia, Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03411
“Building upon the established efficacy of prior reinforcement learning methodologies [33, 34, 35, 36], we incorporate several empirical optimizations to enhance training stability and performance: Leave-One-Out Advantage Estimation.”
Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback
Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Sun, H., Feng, K., Lu, C., Yang, C., & Meng, H. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03106
TTRL: Test-Time Reinforcement Learning
Zuo, Y., Zhang, K., Sheng, L., Qu, S., Cui, G., Zhu, X., Li, H., Zhang, Y., Long, X., Hua, E., et al. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“2-3B-Oat-Zero [26]; • Mistral Family: Mistral-Nemo-Instruct-2407 [29], Ministral-8B-Instruct-2410 [28]; • DeepSeek Family: DeepSeek-Math-7B-Instruct [38], DeepSeek-R1-LLaMA-8B [11]; • Others: Skywork-OR1-Math-7B [13]; Benchmarks We evaluate TTRL on GPQA-Diamond [35], a challenging and high-quality…”
A Survey of Large Language Models
Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y., Min, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Dong, Z., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.18223 · Cited by 2,090
Self-citation
- Authors
- Liu, Z., Chen, C., Li, W., Qi, P., Pang, T., Du, C., Lee, W. S., & Lin, M.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2503.20783
- OpenAlex
- W4409049124
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Keywords
- reinforcement learning from human feedback, large language model reasoning, Qwen2.5, aha moments, Group Relative Policy Optimization, token efficiency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review