Behavior-Consistent Deep Reinforcement Learning

Reinforcement learning (RL) often exhibits high variance across training runs, leading to unreliable performance and posing a major challenge to deployment in real-world domains. In this work, we address the challenge of cross-run policy divergence by formalizing the problem of behavior-consistent RL, where the objective is to obtain policies that are both high-performing and distributionally similar across training runs. Our key observation is that maximum-entropy RL provides a direct mechanism for controlling behavioral divergence by anchoring runs to a common (uniform) prior. We prove that, for Boltzmann policies, choosing the temperature proportional to $Q$-function disagreement bounds the pairwise KL divergence between the induced policies. However, we also show that naïvely increasing entropy might impair policy optimization while amplifying off-policy error. Building upon these observations, we propose $Q$-value Expectile Disagreement (QED), a state-dependent temperature schedule that uses double-critic disagreement as a single-run proxy for cross-run disagreement. Empirically, we demonstrate that across 18 continuous-control tasks, QED reduces across-run divergence by two orders of magnitude without sacrificing performance, resulting in a considerable reduction in return variance at modest sample-efficiency costs.

The Illusion of Insight in Reasoning Models

Do reasoning models have "Aha!" moments? Prior work suggests that models like DeepSeek-R1-Zero undergo sudden mid-trace realizations that lead to accurate outputs, implying an intrinsic capacity for self-correction. Yet, it remains unclear whether such intrinsic shifts in reasoning strategy actually improve performance. Here, we study mid-reasoning shifts and instrument training runs to detect them. Our analysis spans 1M+ reasoning traces, hundreds of training checkpoints, three reasoning domains, and multiple decoding temperatures and model architectures. We find that reasoning shifts are rare, do not become more frequent with training, and seldom improve accuracy, indicating that they do not correspond to prior perceptions of model insight. However, their effect varies with model uncertainty. Building on this finding, we show that artificially triggering extrinsic shifts under high entropy reliably improves accuracy. Our results show that mid-reasoning shifts are symptoms of unstable inference behavior rather than an intrinsic mechanism for self-correction.