DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning
We introduce our first-generation reasoning models, DeepSeek-R1-Zero and DeepSeek-R1. DeepSeek-R1-Zero, a model trained via large-scale reinforcement learning (RL) without supervised fine-tuning (SFT) as a preliminary step, demonstrates remarkable reasoning capabilities. Through RL, DeepSeek-R1-Zero naturally emerges with numerous powerful and intriguing reasoning behaviors. However, it encounters challenges such as poor readability, and language mixing. To address these issues and further enhance reasoning performance, we introduce DeepSeek-R1, which incorporates multi-stage training and cold-start data before RL. DeepSeek- R1 achieves performance comparable to OpenAI-o1-1217 on reasoning tasks.
In this paper, we take the first step toward improving language model reasoning capabilities using pure reinforcement learning (RL). Our goal is to explore the potential of LLMs to develop reasoning capabilities without any supervised data, focusing on their self-evolution through a pure RL process. Specifically, we use DeepSeek-V3-Base as the base model and employ GRPO (Shao et al., 2024) as the RL framework to improve model performance in reasoning. During training, DeepSeek-R1-Zero naturally emerged with numerous powerful and interesting reasoning behaviors. After thousands of RL steps, DeepSeek-R1-Zero exhibits super performance on reasoning benchmarks. For instance, the pass@1 score on AIME 2024 increases from 15.6% to 71.0%, and with majority voting, the score further improves to 86.7%,
This demonstrates that the reasoning patterns discovered by larger base models are crucial for improving reasoning capabilities.
DeepSeek-R1-Zero demonstrates capabilities such as self-verification, reflection, and generating long CoTs, marking a significant milestone for the research community. Notably, it is the first open research to validate that reasoning capabilities of LLMs can be incentivized purely through RL, without
Reasoning data We curate reasoning prompts and generate reasoning trajectories by performing rejection sampling from the checkpoint from the above RL training. In the previous stage, we only included data that could be evaluated using rule-based rewards. However, in this stage, we expand the dataset by incorporating additional data, some of which use a generative reward model by feeding the ground-truth and model predictions into DeepSeek-V3 for judgment.
To further align the model with human preferences, we implement a secondary reinforcement learning stage aimed at improving the model’s helpfulness and harmlessness while simultaneously refining its reasoning capabilities. Specifically, we train the model using a combination of reward signals and diverse prompt distributions. For reasoning data, we adhere to the methodology outlined in DeepSeek-R1-Zero, which utilizes rule-based rewards to guide the learning process in math, code, and logical reasoning domains. For general data, we resort to reward models to capture human preferences in complex and nuanced scenarios.
Aha Moment of DeepSeek-R1-Zero A particularly intriguing phenomenon observed during the training of DeepSeek-R1-Zero is the occurrence of an “aha moment”. This moment, as illustrated in Table 3, occurs in an intermediate version of the model. During this phase, DeepSeek-R1-Zero learns to allocate more thinking time to a problem by reevaluating its initial approach. This behavior is not only a testament to the model’s growing reasoning abilities but also a captivating example of how reinforcement learning can lead to unexpected and sophisticated outcomes.
After fine-tuning DeepSeek-V3-Base on the cold start data, we apply the same large-scale reinforcement learning training process as employed in DeepSeek-R1-Zero. This phase focuses on enhancing the model’s reasoning capabilities, particularly in reasoning-intensive tasks such as coding, mathematics, science, and logic reasoning, which involve well-defined problems with clear solutions. During the training process, we observe that CoT often exhibits language mixing, particularly when RL prompts involve multiple languages. To mitigate the issue of language mixing, we introduce a language consistency reward during RL training, which is calculated as the proportion of target language words in the CoT.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
Can preference-based training achieve better behavior optimization than supervised fine-tuning alone? How can evolutionary algorithms maintain diversity during solution search? How do pretraining biases affect reward signal effectiveness in RLVR?- How does modularity in reward and policy design enable goal generalization?
- What other downstream metrics could serve as RL reward sources?
- What makes LLM-guided pruning necessary for MCTS in language rather than game domains?
- What mechanism causes LLMs to plateau on numerical optimization tasks?
- How do cascaded probabilistic models compare to reinforcement learning for per-query system design?
- Can language models function as implicit process reward models through retrospection?
- Why do LLMs fail at directly solving stochastic control problems?
- Why do LLMs fail at iterative numerical computation in latent space?
- How does LLM simulation of APIs avoid instability without sacrificing training signal?
- Can LLM-synthesized behavioral heuristics compete with learned policy improvements?
- What role does natural language play in breaking reinforcement learning performance plateaus?
- How do value distributions differ across model families and training scales?
- What structural coherence exists in LLM preference systems and value hierarchies?