Policy Optimization Prefers The Path of Least Resistance

TL;DR

This paper reveals that policy optimization in language models tends to favor the simplest reward pathways, often neglecting explicit reasoning when given flexibility, which poses challenges for alignment and complex reasoning tasks.

Contribution

The study systematically demonstrates that policy optimization prefers the path of least resistance, leading to a collapse of reasoning formats and highlighting the importance of constrained optimization for alignment.

Findings

PO favors simple reward components first

Flexible policies tend to discard explicit reasoning

High-reward shortcuts emerge even with increased reward weights

Abstract

Policy optimization (PO) algorithms are used to refine Large Language Models for complex, multi-step reasoning. Current state-of-the-art pipelines enforce a strict think-then-answer format to elicit chain-of-thought (CoT); however, the behavior of PO when these rigid constraints are relaxed into an open-ended CoT structure remains an under-studied question. We investigate this gap with an extensive suite of controlled experiments and identify a consistent principle: \textit{policy optimization consistently follows the path of least resistance}. When afforded the flexibility to interleave reasoning and response, policy optimization consistently learns to discard explicit reasoning, causing the policy to degenerate to a direct \texttt{<answer>}-only format. This outcome holds true across various models and algorithms. We find that this collapse in format is persistent even when the complex \texttt{<think><answer>} format is assigned up to 4x larger reward weights. We formalize this principle through a series of controlled reward decomposition experiments, demonstrating a clear hierarchy: PO systematically optimizes for the simplest reward component first, a preference that holds even when faced with mutually exclusive choices or strong incentives for more complex behaviors. Finally, we show that successful convergence on the high-reward shortcut is not a low-effort drift but is driven by the optimization process that requires the KL-regularized policy to have sufficient freedom to make a significant shift from its initial prior. Our findings reveal that granting policies the freedom to diverge is a double-edged sword: while necessary for discovering high-reward shortcuts, it also creates a powerful incentive to game the simplest aspects of the reward function, posing a critical challenge for reward hacking under alignment.