Papers › Explore More, Drift Less: Outcome-Only Reinforcement Learning Can Suffice for...
Explore More, Drift Less: Outcome-Only Reinforcement Learning Can Suffice for Long-Horizon Interactive Agents
Liming Pu, Xiaoxia Li, Yifu Liu, Teng Cao, Bin Yang
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Reinforcement learning is a natural way to post-train LLM agents for long-horizon interactive tasks judged only by end-of-task verification, yet a shared belief holds that outcome-only RL soon hits a ceiling on small open models. Recent work therefore compensates around the training with denser rewards, SFT priors, skill libraries, curated memory, or multi-agent orchestration. We argue the ceiling is an artifact of two failures of common practice. Signal starvation: group-relative RL with sparse outcome-only rewards yields a gradient only when a task's rollout group mixes successes and failures, so under-scaled exploration silences exactly the hardest, most instructive tasks. Policy drift: squeezing many updates out of a small task pool degrades the policy itself, as an unanchored objective lets the sampling distribution collapse exactly when saturation has already made informative groups rare. We present CANOPY (Coverage-ANchored On-PolicY RL), a minimalist protocol attacking both directly: scale same-task exploration until the natural signal reappears, keep every update on-policy, KL-anchored, and confined to the agent's own action tokens, then cash in an enlarged interaction budget at test time. On AppWorld, a long-horizon interactive coding benchmark, a Qwen3-14B policy trained with CANOPY through environment interaction alone--without task-specific supervision, auxiliary credit signals, or elaborate agent scaffolding--topped the public leaderboard (Feb. 2026; Test-Normal TGC 86.9, Test-Challenge 67.6), and the same design principles lift Qwen3.5-9B on SWE-bench Verified by 16.6 points. Agentic RL alone thus internalizes long-horizon capability directly into a small open model; we plan to release the complete training stack at https://github.com/AlibabaResearch/SignalCoverageRL.
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="2609.01245")
Code
Syntology Ran 5 of 16 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 11 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · fixture could not drive it; 4 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 16 samples from 1 repository, 5 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
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
16 samples harvested; 5 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 11 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.
Licence: 0 of the 16 samples are 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 AlibabaResearch/SignalCoverageRL. “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.
8896f4e2bafe8abc · report
94209884dcb2308e · report
735e93af30b15fa9 · report
21331a58f93375e4 · report
83b1686d7ac03c21 · report
ad56f55bcbce5bf6 · report
26d3632ddcd71388 · report
e4883a279c37b6cd · report
f0bf58fcbec1fea2 · report
acf240079d434746 · report
ada2d6cf9ca9ee89 · report
705afe175ad8e404 · report
72b5e8089e8c68a6 · report
486298f1808d26e0 · report
4ef39d813f976ab5 · report
3b15e2ac7497c441 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2609.01245, was issued in September 2026, 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