Benefits and Pitfalls of Reinforcement Learning for Language Model Planning: A Theoretical Perspective
Abstract
Theoretical analysis of reinforcement learning methods in enhancing LLM planning reveals that while RL improves generalization through exploration, policy gradient suffers from diversity collapse, whereas Q-learning maintains diversity and requires careful reward design.
Recent reinforcement learning (RL) methods have substantially enhanced the planning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet the theoretical basis for their effectiveness remains elusive. In this work, we investigate RL's benefits and limitations through a tractable graph-based abstraction, focusing on policy gradient (PG) and Q-learning methods. Our theoretical analyses reveal that supervised fine-tuning (SFT) may introduce co-occurrence-based spurious solutions, whereas RL achieves correct planning primarily through exploration, underscoring exploration's role in enabling better generalization. However, we also show that PG suffers from diversity collapse, where output diversity decreases during training and persists even after perfect accuracy is attained. By contrast, Q-learning provides two key advantages: off-policy learning and diversity preservation at convergence. We further demonstrate that careful reward design is necessary to prevent reward hacking in Q-learning. Finally, applying our framework to the real-world planning benchmark Blocksworld, we confirm that these behaviors manifest in practice.
Community
In this paper, we analyze RL for language modeling planning and present 6 takeaways:
(1) Supervised finetuning (SFT) memorizes co-occurrence relationships in the training dataset;
(2) Policy gradient (PG) outperforms SFT primarily because its iterative data generation process encourages exploration and effectively expands the training dataset;
(3) In the absence of KL divergence, output diversity continuously declines;
(4) KL regularization explicitly acts as a diversity-preserving mechanism, provided that the base model is reasonably capable, but this comes at the cost of reduced train accuracy;
(5) Compared to PG methods, Q-learning can operate off-policy and better main
tains output diversity;
(6) Different from PG methods, in Q-learning, relying solely on the outcome reward signal can cause reward hacking, whereas introducing process rewards mitigates this issue.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- On the Generalization of SFT: A Reinforcement Learning Perspective with Reward Rectification (2025)
- Anchored Supervised Fine-Tuning (2025)
- Proximal Supervised Fine-Tuning (2025)
- Outcome-based Exploration for LLM Reasoning (2025)
- RL's Razor: Why Online Reinforcement Learning Forgets Less (2025)
- CLPO: Curriculum Learning meets Policy Optimization for LLM Reasoning (2025)
- From Trial-and-Error to Improvement: A Systematic Analysis of LLM Exploration Mechanisms in RLVR (2025)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment:
@librarian-bot
recommend
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper