Reinforcement Learning vs. Distillation: Understanding Accuracy and Capability in LLM Reasoning
Minwu Kim; Anubhav Shrestha; Safal Shrestha; Aadim Nepal; Keith Ross · 2025 · arXiv
WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate
The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.
Abstract (excerpt)
Recent studies have shown that reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) enhances overall accuracy (pass@1) but often fails to improve capability (pass@k) of LLMs in reasoning tasks, while distillation can improve both. In this paper, we investigate the mechanisms behind these phenomena. First, we demonstrate that RLVR struggles to improve capability as it focuses on improving the accuracy of the easier questions to the detriment of the accuracy of the most difficult questions. Second, we show that RLVR does not merely increase the success probability for the easier questions, but
Excerpt shown for reference under fair use — read the full paper at the publisher.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science
Negative / Null Result ReportDefining and detecting quantum speedup
Negative / Null Result ReportService robots in hotels: understanding the service quality perceptions of human-robot interaction
Negative / Null Result ReportBoosting methods for multi-class imbalanced data classification: an experimental review
Negative / Null Result ReportFINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: A META‐ANALYSIS
Negative / Null Result ReportThe impact of site-specific digital histology signatures on deep learning model accuracy and bias
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: arXiv