Dissecting Long Reasoning Models: An Empirical Study

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.