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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Building on this, the Guru dataset (Cheng et al., 2025) spans six reasoning domains, showing that RL gains correlate with pretraining exposure: math and code benefit from transfer, but domains like simulation or logic need dedicated training.”
From The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey (2025) · cites this paper as Cheng et al., 2025
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
FinQA: A Dataset of Numerical Reasoning over Financial Data
Chen, Z., Chen, W., Smiley, C., Shah, S., Borova, I., Langdon, D., Moussa, R., Beane, M., Huang, T.-H., Routledge, B., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.300 · Cited by 258 · cited 1×
“This clearly demonstrates the exceptional quality and effectiveness of the G URU dataset in promoting a wide scope of reasoning ability, highlighting its value as a strong foundation for building general-purpose reasoning models.”
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Entropy Minimization in LLM Reasoning
Agarwal, S., Zhang, Z., Yuan, L., Han, J., & Peng, H. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.15134 · Cited by 4
Process Reinforcement through Implicit Rewards
Cui, G., Yuan, L., Wang, Z., Wang, H., Zhang, Y., Chen, J., Li, W., He, B., Fan, Y., Yu, T., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.01456 · Cited by 3
Self-citationZebraLogic: On the Scaling Limits of LLMs for Logical Reasoning
Lin, B. Y., Bras, R. L., Richardson, K., Sabharwal, A., Poovendran, R., Clark, P., & Choi, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.01100 · Cited by 1
Cited by
The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey
Zhang, G., Geng, H., Yu, X., Yin, Z., Zhang, Z., Tan, Z., Zhou, H., Li, Z., Xue, X., Li, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02547 · Cited by 229
Self-citation
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
- arXiv
- 2506.14965
- 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
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.