<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Implicitly Incentivizes Correct Reasoning in Base LLMs · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2506.14245/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2506.14245/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Implicitly Incentivizes Correct Reasoning in Base LLMs — mentioned by ineedasername</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47565532</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2506.14245:47565532</guid><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 18:04:57 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;That linked article says its about RLVR but then goes on to conflate other RL with it, and doesn&amp;#x27;t address much in the way of the core thinking that was in the paper they were partially responding to that had been published a month earlier[0] which laid out findings and theory reasonably well, including work that runs counter to the main criticism in the article you cited, ie, performance at or above base models only being observed with low K examples. That said, reachability and novel strategies are somewhat overlapping areas of consideration, and I don&amp;#x27;t see many ways in which RL in…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2506.14245/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item><item><title>Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Implicitly Incentivizes Correct Reasoning in Base LLMs — mentioned by LarsDu88</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47284964</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2506.14245:47284964</guid><pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2026 06:11:43 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;It is true. Here is the publication going over how to generate this type of dataset and finetune: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.14245 I don&amp;#x27;t think you grasp my statement. LLMs will exceed humans greatly for any domain that is easy to computationally verify such as math and code. For areas not amenable to deterministic computations such as human biology, or experimental particle physics, progress will be slower&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2506.14245/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item><item><title>Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Implicitly Incentivizes Correct Reasoning in Base LLMs — mentioned by LarsDu88</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45956293</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2506.14245:45956293</guid><pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:19:25 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Karpathy needs to cite the damn papers. In this case its clear he read or at least heard of: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.14245&amp;amp;ved=2ahUKEwjru7nL5fmQAxUMDT... For a guy with such high profile, its soooo easy to take credit for ideas to make them seem original.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2506.14245/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item></channel></rss>
