Papers
arxiv:2509.22613

Benefits and Pitfalls of Reinforcement Learning for Language Model Planning: A Theoretical Perspective

Published on Sep 26
· Submitted by Yifei Shen on Oct 1
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

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.

AI-generated summary

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

Paper submitter

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

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

Sign up or log in to comment

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2509.22613 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2509.22613 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2509.22613 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.