Papers › Co-rewarding: Stable Self-supervised RL for Eliciting Reasoning in Large Language Models

Co-rewarding: Stable Self-supervised RL for Eliciting Reasoning in Large Language Models

1 Aug 2025ICLRarXiv:2508.00410added by Syntology

Zizhuo Zhang, Jianing Zhu, Xinmu Ge, Zihua Zhao, Zhanke Zhou, Xuan Li, Xiao Feng, Jiangchao Yao, Bo Han

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

While reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is effective to improve the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs), its reliance on human-annotated labels leads to the scaling up dilemma, especially for complex tasks. Recent self-rewarding methods investigate a label-free alternative to unlock the reasoning capabilities of LLMs, yet they frequently encounter the non-negligible training collapse issue, as the single-view supervision signal easily forms the self-consistent illusion, yielding the reward hacking. Inspired by the success of self-supervised learning, we propose \textit{Co-rewarding}, a novel self-supervised RL framework that improves training stability by seeking complementary supervision from another views. Specifically, we instantiate Co-rewarding in two ways: (1) \textit{Co-rewarding-I} is a data-side instantiation that derives reward signals from contrastive agreement across semantically analogous questions; and (2) \textit{Co-rewarding-II} is a model-side instantiation that maintains a slowly-updated reference teacher with pseudo labels to realize self-distillation. Intuitively, such instantiations introduce different levels of discrepancy to increase the difficulty of training collapse on trivial reasoning solutions. We also explore their orthogonally combined version to further boost the performance. Empirically, Co-rewarding exhibits stable training across various setups, and outperforms other self-rewarding baselines by +3.31% improvements on average on multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks, especially by +7.49% on Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct. Notably, Co-rewarding reaches or even surpasses RLVR with ground-truth (GT) label in several cases, such as a Pass@$1$ of 94.01% on GSM8K with Qwen3-8B-Base remarkably higher than GT. Our code is released at https://github.com/tmlr-group/Co-rewarding.

PaperPDFCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2508.00410")

Code

Syntology Ran 1 of 1 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract.

By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 1 sample from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

tmlr-group/Co-rewarding found in paper text by Syntology report

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

1 sample harvested; 1 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

1ran · honoured contract

Licence: 1 of the 1 sample is pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from tmlr-group/Co-rewarding. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

compute_rewards tmlr-group/Co-rewarding/Co-rewarding-II/verl/trainer/ppo/core_algos.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · honoured contract fingerprinted no licence file found · pointer only · 6f62a4e97e734044 · report

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2508.00410, was issued in August 2025, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections