Vocabulary Dropout for Curriculum Diversity in LLM Co-Evolution
Open accessAbstract
Co-evolutionary self-play, where one language model generates problems and another solves them, promises curriculum learning without human supervision. The promise breaks down early in practice. The proposer converges to a narrow distribution of problems that satisfy the reward function, and the collapsed curriculum teaches the solver little, stalling the loop. We introduce vocabulary dropout, a lightweight intervention that randomly masks the proposer's output logits during both policy training and curriculum generation. The mask is hard and non-stationary, so the proposer cannot lock into fixed token sequences. Training Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B on mathematical reasoning via R-Zero, vocabulary dropout sustains proposer diversity throughout training across lexical, semantic, and functional measures, and improves the solver by an average of +4.4 points at 8B with the largest gains on competition-level benchmarks. Explicit action-space constraints, filling the structural role that game rules fill in classical self-play, can keep co-evolution in language productive. Vocabulary dropout is one simple way to impose them.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Proposers converge to the narrow band of problems that satisfy the reward, starving the solver's curriculum.
“proposers converge to the narrow band of problems that satisfy the reward, starving the solver's curriculum [149]”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [149]
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
Khalid, H. M., Shapsough, S., & Zualkernan, I. A. (2026) · Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.bea-1.41
- Authors
- Dineen, J., RRV, A., Xu, Z., & Zhou, B.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2604.03472
- OpenAlex
- W7151340857
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- 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 › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- curriculum learning, mathematical reasoning, Qwen3
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