RAGEN-2: Reasoning Collapse in Agentic RL

Paper · arXiv 2604.06268 · Published April 7, 2026
LLM Failure Modes

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? Does intelligent routing among smaller models outperform training larger models? Can minimal training unlock latent reasoning already present in base models? Does reinforcement learning create genuinely new reasoning capabilities or only refine existing ones? How do training data quality and composition affect downstream model performance? How do curriculum design and feedback approaches affect model learning? What prediction granularity best trains models to generate reliable reasoning? What are the fundamental limits of prompting for language models? Can AI agents improve their skills through accumulated experience and reuse? How do reward signal properties affect model reasoning and safety? How does optimization for reward create emergent misalignment in language models? Why do training associations persist despite contradictory contextual information? Should models ask for clarification when facing ambiguous or under-specified information?