Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Revisiting Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning from A Cross-Domain Perspective

Cheng, Zhoujun, Hao, Shibo, Liu, Tianyang, Zhou, Fan, Xie, Yutao, Yao, Feng, Bian, Yuexin, Zhuang, Yonghao, Dey, Nilabjo, Zha, Yuheng, Gu, Yi, Zhou, Kun, Wang, Yuqi, Li, Yuan, Fan, Richard, She, Jianshu, Gao, Chengqian, Saparov, Abulhair, Li, Haonan, Killian, Taylor W., Yurochkin, Mikhail, Liu, Zhengzhong, Xing, Eric P., Hu, Zhiting·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a promising approach to improve large language model (LLM) reasoning, yet most open efforts focus narrowly on math and code, limiting our understanding of its broader applicability to general reasoning. A key challenge lies in the lack of reliable, scalable RL reward signals across diverse reasoning domains. We introduce Guru, a curated RL reasoning corpus of 92K verifiable examples spanning six reasoning domains--Math, Code, Science, Logic, Simulation, and Tabular--each built through domain-specific reward design, deduplication, and filtering to ensure reliability and effectiveness for RL training. Based on Guru, we systematically revisit established findings in RL for LLM reasoning and observe significant variation across domains. For example, while prior work suggests that RL primarily elicits existing knowledge from pretrained models, our results reveal a more nuanced pattern: domains frequently seen during pretraining (Math, Code, Science) easily benefit from cross-domain RL training, while domains with limited pretraining exposure (Logic, Simulation, and Tabular) require in-domain training to achieve meaningful performance gains, suggesting that RL is likely to facilitate genuine skill acquisition. Finally, we present Guru-7B and Guru-32B, two models that achieve state-of-the-art performance among open models RL-trained with publicly available data, outperforming best baselines by 7.9% and 6.7% on our 17-task evaluation suite across six reasoning domains. We also show that our models effectively improve the Pass@k performance of their base models, particularly on complex tasks less likely to appear in pretraining data. We release data, models, training and evaluation code to facilitate general-purpose reasoning at: https://github.com/LLM360/Reasoning360

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.14965

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Cheng, Z., Hao, S., Liu, T., Zhou, F., Xie, Y., Yao, F., Bian, Y., Zhuang, Y., Dey, N., Zha, Y., Gu, Y., Zhou, K., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Fan, R., She, J., Gao, C., Saparov, A., Li, H., Killian, T. W., Yurochkin, M., Liu, Z., Xing, E. P., & Hu, Z.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
References
4
Type
Preprint

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Revisiting Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning from A Cross-Domain Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2506.14965
The paper
Cheng, Z., Hao, S., Liu, T., Zhou, F., Xie, Y., Yao, F., Bian, Y., Zhuang, Y., Dey, N., Zha, Y., Gu, Y., Zhou, K., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Fan, R., She, J., Gao, C., Saparov, A., Li, H., . . . Hu, Z. (2025). Revisiting Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning from A Cross-Domain Perspective. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2506.14965

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.