Papers › Dissecting Long Reasoning Models: An Empirical Study

Dissecting Long Reasoning Models: An Empirical Study

5 Jun 2025arXiv:2506.04913archive 2025-07-28

Yongyu Mu, Jiali Zeng, Bei Li, Xinyan Guan, Fandong Meng, Jie zhou, Tong Xiao, Jingbo Zhu

Despite recent progress in training long-context reasoning models via reinforcement learning (RL), several open questions and counterintuitive behaviors remain. This work focuses on three key aspects: (1) We systematically analyze the roles of positive and negative samples in RL, revealing that positive samples mainly facilitate data fitting, whereas negative samples significantly enhance generalization and robustness. Interestingly, training solely on negative samples can rival standard RL training performance. (2) We identify substantial data inefficiency in group relative policy optimization, where over half of the samples yield zero advantage. To address this, we explore two straightforward strategies, including relative length rewards and offline sample injection, to better leverage these data and enhance reasoning efficiency and capability. (3) We investigate unstable performance across various reasoning models and benchmarks, attributing instability to uncertain problems with ambiguous outcomes, and demonstrate that multiple evaluation runs mitigate this issue.

PaperPDFCode

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

Code

takagi97/dissect-long-reason-models officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. 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

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Reinforcement Learning (RL)

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

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