RAGEN-2: Reasoning Collapse in Agentic RL
RL training of multi-turn LLM agents is inherently unstable, and reasoning quality directly determines task performance. Entropy is widely used to track reasoning stability. However, entropy only measures diversity within the same input, and cannot tell whether reasoning actually responds to different inputs. In RAGEN-2, we find that even with stable entropy, models can rely on fixed templates that look diverse but are input-agnostic. We call this template collapse, a failure mode invisible to entropy and all existing metrics. To diagnose this failure, we decompose reasoning quality into withininput diversity (Entropy) and cross-input distinguishability (Mutual Information, MI), and introduce a family of mutual information proxies for online diagnosis. Across diverse tasks, mutual information correlates with final performance much more strongly than entropy, making it a more reliable proxy for reasoning quality. We further explain template collapse with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) mechanism. Low reward variance weakens task gradients, letting regularization terms dominate and erase cross-input reasoning differences. To address this, we propose SNR-Aware Filtering to select highsignal prompts per iteration using reward variance as a lightweight proxy.
Introduction. Training multi-turn LLM agents with reinforcement learning (RL) is inherently challenging [34, 72, 68]. Researchers therefore monitor reward for outcome stability and entropy for reasoning process stability [42, 32, 62], treating both as stability indicators of RL training. However, entropy can be an ambiguous signal to understand reasoning quality. When entropy decreases, it may simply reflect the model becoming more specialized and confident on the task, which is a natural outcome of RL optimization [68, 62]. When entropy remains high, reasoning can still drift toward fixed templates that appear diverse within any single input but are effectively the same across inputs (Figure 1). We call this template collapse, a failure mode invisible to both metrics. This risk is especially acute in multi-turn settings: sparse rewards cannot distinguish input-driven reasoning from templated reasoning that merely happens to succeed [59, 60], and reasoning chains are hard to get directly supervised [44, 6].
Discussion / Conclusion. We find closed-loop multi-turn agent RL can fail silently: reasoning drifts toward fluent but input-agnostic boilerplate while conditional entropy remains stable. We define this as template collapse. Built on this, the paper makes three contributions. First, we introduce a mutual information (MI) proxy between inputs and reasoning, which interprets template collapse and tracks task performance better than conditional entropy. To explain why collapse occurs, we propose SNR mechanism in RL and show that low within-input reward variance suppresses task gradients and lets regularization forces dominate, pushing policy outputs toward input-agnostic templates. To address this, we introduce SNR-Aware Filtering to prioritize prompts with reward variance before each parameter update, improving performance on average across tasks, model scales, and modalities and can integrate easily with existing training pipelines. Limitations.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
Can iterative DPO substitute for online RL in studying misalignment? How does policy entropy collapse limit scaling of reasoning-focused reinforcement learning?- What causes on-policy distillation to become unstable at scale despite dense rewards?
- How does policy entropy collapse constrain zero RL scaling for reasoning?
- How does regularization dominance explain policy entropy collapse in reasoning?
- Does stable entropy in policy training actually guarantee stable reasoning behavior?
- What distinguishes high-signal prompts from low-signal ones in RL training?
- Why does exploration diversity behave differently under reinforcement learning versus supervised fine-tuning?
- What makes student-teacher distributional mismatch derail on-policy distillation?
- How should training distribution distance be defined when the policy evolves?
- Do identical task structures mean repeated instances or new synthetic samples with same design?
- How do learning dynamics on one example shift predictions on other responses?
- How does the proxy pattern explain failures in RL-based safety training?
- Why do semantically related prompts converge into attractor states in middle layers?
- How do weights, selection, and prompts create different geometric landscapes of accessible behaviors?
- Do shared prompts and infrastructure keep model biases correlated?