Daily Papers

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, particularly Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), has significantly advanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, in complex tasks, GRPO frequently suffers from the ``zero-advantage problem'': when all sampled rollouts for a query fail, the relative advantage collapses to zero. Consequently, the model loses effective training signals for these questions, wasting the training data and computational budget. While simply increasing the sampling budget for these questions is a common remedy, the static sampling policy inherently constrains reasoning exploration, limiting the success rate. In this paper, we propose Lorem Perturbation for Exploration (LoPE), a simple yet effective training framework to break this exploration bottleneck. We posit that task-irrelevant prompt-space perturbations can shift the model's output distribution enough to unlock orthogonal reasoning pathways for hard questions. Specifically, LoPE prepends sequences stochastically assembled from Lorem Ipsum vocabulary (a pseudo-Latin placeholder text) to the prompts before resampling. Experiments across 1.7B, 4B, and 7B models demonstrate that LoPE significantly outperforms resampling with the original prompts. Further analysis reveals that other Latin-based random sequences with low perplexity are also effective perturbations. Our results establish LoPE as a strong baseline for broadening exploration in LLM reinforcement learning.

Common-sense reasoning is a key language model capability because it encapsulates not just specific factual knowledge but rather general language and world understanding. Measuring common-sense reasoning, therefore, is crucial for language models of different sizes and applications. One of the most widely used benchmarks for evaluating such capabilities is HellaSwag; however, in this paper, we show that it has severe construct validity issues. These issues range from basic ungrammaticality and numerous typos to misleading prompts or equally correct options. Furthermore, we show that if models are evaluated only on answer texts, or with "Lorem ipsum dolor..." instead of the question, more than 65% of model predictions remain the same, and this cannot be attributed merely to contamination. Since benchmark scores are an essential part of model selection in both research and commercial applications, these validity issues can have severe consequences. In particular, knowing that taking benchmark scores at face value is ubiquitous, inadequate evaluation leads to ill-informed decisions about models. In this paper, we thoroughly investigate critical validity issues posed by HellaSwag and illustrate them with various evaluations using generative language models of different sizes. We argue that this benchmark does not accurately measure common-sense reasoning and, therefore, should not be used for evaluation in its current state. Based on the results of our study, we propose requirements that should be met by future common-sense reasoning benchmarks. In addition, we release GoldenSwag, a corrected subset of HellaSwag, which, to our belief, facilitates acceptable common-sense reasoning evaluation.