PreprintCited by 1Topic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

LongRLVR: Long-Context Reinforcement Learning Requires Verifiable Context Rewards

Open access
Chen, Guanzheng, Shieh, Michael Qizhe, Bing, Lidong·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has significantly advanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) by optimizing them against factual outcomes. However, this paradigm falters in long-context scenarios, as its reliance on internal parametric knowledge is ill-suited for tasks requiring contextual grounding--the ability to find and reason over externally provided information. We identify a key reason for this failure: a reward based solely on the final answer is too sparse to effectively guide the model for identifying relevant evidence. We formally prove that the outcome-only reward leads to significant vanishing gradients for the context grounding process, rendering learning intractable. To overcome this bottleneck, we introduce LongRLVR to augment the sparse answer reward with a dense and verifiable context reward. This auxiliary signal directly incentivizes the model for selecting the correct grounding information, providing a robust learning gradient that solves the underlying optimization challenge. We validate our method on challenging long-context benchmarks using Qwen and LLaMA models. LongRLVR consistently and significantly outperforms the standard RLVR across all models and benchmarks, e.g., boosting a 14B model's scores on RULER-QA from 73.17 to 88.90 and on LongBench v2 from 39.8 to 46.5. Our work demonstrates that explicitly rewarding the grounding process is a critical and effective strategy for unlocking the full reasoning potential of LLMs in long-context applications. Our code is available at https://github.com/real-absolute-AI/LongRLVR.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2603.02146

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • No existing work sits in the intersection of a trainable environment whose reward is supersession-correctness.

    “No existing work sits in the intersection: a trainable environment whose reward is supersession-correctness.”

    From Supersede: Diagnosing and Training the Memory-Update Gap in LLM Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2026

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • “A line of work instead learns memory management with RL: MemAgent (Yu et al., 2025) rewards final-answer correctness, LongRLVR (Chen et al., 2026) rewards evidence relevance within a single long document, AgeMem (Yu et al., 2026) (Anthropic, 2026), and Google’s Gemini personalization (Google, 2026) all run background…”

Authors
Chen, G., Shieh, M. Q., & Bing, L.
Affiliations
National University of Singapore (SG)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7133339890
Cited by
0
References
3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, long-context reasoning, contextual grounding, sparse rewards, gradient vanishing, large language models, evidence selection, long-context question answering

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