https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.12948
Author not recordedDate not recordedOriginal︎ ↗Archived copy
Stewards’ notes · 3
- In DeepSeek's RL ablation on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B, chain-of-thought language consistency declines without an LC reward but stays stable with one.
Supports. The ablation is run on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B, not on DeepSeek-R1-Zero, and the result is shown as a single training-curve figure with no reported variance or repeated runs. The same section reports comparable math performance and slight coding degradation with the reward. Oct 30, 2026
- DeepSeek-R1-Zero produces chain-of-thought responses with poor readability and English-Chinese language mixing.
Supports. The developers' own report. It describes the problem qualitatively and backs it indirectly by introducing a language-consistency reward to correct it; it gives no quantified rate of mixing for R1-Zero itself. Read through search excerpts of the HTML version rather than in full. Oct 30, 2026
- A language-consistency reward improves chain-of-thought readability while slightly reducing model performance.
Overstates. The ablation, run on a 7B distilled model, measures language consistency and two benchmarks (AIME and LiveCodeBench): math is comparable and coding slightly lower. Readability and alignment with human preferences are asserted, not measured; no human evaluation is reported. Oct 30, 2026
Examinations
None recorded.
Text92 passages · 5 marked
provided exemplars, which prevents the exploration of superior, non-human-like reasoning pathways. To tackle these issues, we aim to explore the potential of LLMs for developing reasoning abilities through self-evolution in an RL framework, with minimal reliance on human labeling efforts. Specifically, we build upon DeepSeek-V3-Base (DeepSeek-AI, 2024b) and employ Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) (Shao et al., 2024) as our RL framework. The reward signal is solely based on the correctness of final predictions against ground-truth answers, without imposing constraints on the reasoning process itself. Notably, we bypass the conventional supervised fine-tuning (SFT) phase before RL training. This design choice stems from our hypothesis that human-defined reasoning patterns may limit model exploration, whereas unrestricted RL training can better incentivize the emergence of novel reasoning capabilities in LLMs. Through this process, detailed in Section 2, our model (referred to as DeepSeek-R1- Zero) naturally developed diverse and sophisticated reasoning behaviors. In solving reasoning problems, the model exhibits a tendency to generate longer responses, incorporating verification, reflection, and the exploration of alternative approaches within each response. Although we do not explicitly teach the model how to reason, it successfully learns improved reasoning strategies through reinforcement learning. Although DeepSeek-R1-Zero demonstrates excellent reasoning capabilities, it faces chal- lenges such as poor readability and language mixing, occasionally combining English and Chinese within a single chain-of-thought response. Furthermore, the rule-based RL training stage of DeepSeek-R1-Zero is narrowly focused on reasoning tasks, resulting in limited per- formance in broader areas such as writing and open-domain question answering. To address these challenges, we introduce DeepSeek-R1, a model trained through a multi-stage learning framework that integrates rejection sampling, reinforcement learning, and supervised fine- tuning, detailed in Section 3. This training pipeline enables DeepSeek-R1 to inherit the reasoning capabilities of its predecessor, DeepSeek-R1-Zero, while aligning model behavior with human preferences through additional non-reasoning data. To enable broader access to powerful AI at a lower energy cost, we have distilled sev- eral smaller models and made them publicly available. These distilled models exhibit strong reasoning capabilities, surpassing the performance of their original instruction-tuned coun- terparts. We believe that these instruction-tuned versions will also significantly contribute to the research community by providing a valuable resource for understanding the mechanisms underlying long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning models and for fostering the development of more powerful reasoning models. We release DeepSeek-R1 series models to the public at https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai. 2. DeepSeek-R1-Zero We begin by elaborating on the training of DeepSeek-R1-Zero, which relies exclusively on reinforcement learning without supervised fine-tuning. To facilitate large-scale RL efficiency, we adopt Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) (Shao et al., 2024). 2.1. Group Relative Policy Optimization GRPO (Shao et al., 2024) is the reinforcement learning algorithm that we adopt to train DeepSeek- R1-Zero and DeepSeek-R1. It was originally proposed to simplify the training process and reduce the resource consumption of Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) (Schulman et al., 2017), which is widely used in the RL stage of LLMs (Ouyang et al., 2022). 2
Supports. The developers' own report. It describes the problem qualitatively and backs it indirectly by introducing a language-consistency reward to correct it; it gives no quantified rate of mixing for R1-Zero itself. Read through search excerpts of the HTML version rather than in full. Read from the quoted passage alone.
5. Ethics and Safety Statement With the advancement in the reasoning capabilities of DeepSeek-R1, we deeply recognize the potential ethical risks. For example, R1 can be subject to jailbreak attacks, leading to the generation of dangerous content such as explosive manufacturing plans, while the enhanced reasoning capabilities enable the model to provide plans with better operational feasibility and executability. Besides, a public model is also vulnerable to further fine-tuning that could compromise inherent safety protections. In Supplementary D.3, we present a comprehensive safety report from multiple perspectives, including performance on open-source and in-house safety evaluation benchmarks, and safety levels across multiple languages and against jailbreak attacks. These comprehensive safety analyses conclude that the inherent safety level of the DeepSeek-R1 model, compared to other state-of-the-art models, is generally at a moderate level (comparable to GPT-4o (2024-05-13)). Besides, when coupled with the risk control system, the model’s safety level is elevated to a superior standard. 6. Conclusion, Limitation, and Future Work We present DeepSeek-R1-Zero and DeepSeek-R1, which rely on large-scale RL to incentivize model reasoning behaviors. Our results demonstrate that pre-trained checkpoints inherently possess substantial potential for complex reasoning tasks. We believe that the key to unlocking this potential lies not in large-scale human annotation but in the provision of hard reasoning questions, a reliable verifier, and sufficient computational resources for reinforcement learning. Sophisticated reasoning behaviors, such as self-verification and reflection, appeared to emerge organically during the reinforcement learning process. Even if DeepSeek-R1 achieves frontier results on reasoning benchmarks, it still faces several capability limitations, as outlined below: Structure Output and Tool Use: Currently, the structural output capabilities of DeepSeek-R1 remain suboptimal compared to existing models. Moreover, DeepSeek-R1 cannot leverage tools, such as search engines and calculators, to improve the performance of output. However, as it is not hard to build an RL environment for structure output and tool use, we believe the issue will be addressed in the next version. Token efficiency: Unlike conventional test-time computation scaling approaches, such as majority voting or Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), DeepSeek-R1 dynamically allocates computational resources during inference according to the complexity of the problem at hand. Specifically, it uses fewer tokens to solve simple tasks, while generating more tokens for complex tasks. Nevertheless, there remains room for further optimization in terms of token efficiency, as instances of excessive reasoning—manifested as overthinking—are still observed in response to simpler questions. Language Mixing: DeepSeek-R1 is currently optimized for Chinese and English, which may result in language mixing issues when handling queries in other languages. For instance, DeepSeek-R1 might use English for reasoning and responses, even if the query is in a language other than English or Chinese. We aim to address this limitation in future updates. The limitation may be related to the base checkpoint, DeepSeek-V3-Base, mainly utilizes Chinese and English, so that it can achieve better results with the two languages in reasoning. Prompting Engineering: When evaluating DeepSeek-R1, we observe that it is sensitive to 10
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
Appendix A. Background A.1. DeepSeek-V3 DeepSeek V3 (DeepSeek-AI, 2024b) is an advanced open-source LLM developed by DeepSeek. Released in December 2024, DeepSeek V3 represents a significant leap forward in AI innovation, designed to rival leading models like OpenAI’s GPT-4 and Meta’s Llama 3.1, while maintaining remarkable cost efficiency and performance. Built on a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture, DeepSeek V3 has 671 billion total parameters, with 37 billion activated per token, optimizing both efficiency and capability. It was pre-trained on an expansive dataset of 14.8 trillion high- quality, diverse tokens, followed by supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning to enhance its abilities across various domains. The model incorporates innovative features like Multi-head Latent Attention (MLA) (DeepSeek-AI, 2024a) for efficient inference, an auxiliary- loss-free load-balancing strategy, and Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) (Gloeckle et al., 2024) to boost performance, particularly in tasks like mathematics and coding. For the training data of DeepSeek-V3-Base, we exclusively use plain web pages and e-books, without incorporating any synthetic data. However, we have observed that some web pages contain a significant number of OpenAI-model-generated answers, which may lead the base model to acquire knowledge from other powerful models indirectly. However, we did not intentionally include synthetic data generated by OpenAI during the pre-training cooldown phase; all data used in this phase were naturally occurring and collected through web crawling. The pre-training dataset contains a substantial amount of mathematical and code-related content, indicating that DeepSeek-V3-Base has been exposed to a significant volume of reasoning trace data. This extensive exposure equips the model with the capability to generate plausible solution candidates, from which reinforcement learning can effectively identify and optimize high-quality outputs. We did the data contamination in pre-training as described in Appendix D.1. The training data of DeepSeek-V3 base are mostly Chinese and English, which might be the cause for DeepSeek-R1-Zero language mixing when the language consistent reward is absent. In this paper, we use the notation DeepSeek-V3-Base as the base model, DeepSeek-V3 as the instructed model. Notably, DeepSeek-R1 and DeepSeek-R1-Zero are trained on top of DeepSeek-V3-Base and DeepSeek-R1 leverages non-reasoning data from DeepSeek-V3 SFT data. DeepSeek-R1-Dev1, DeepSeek-R1-Dev2, DeepSeek-R1-Dev3 are intermediate checkpoints of DeepSeek-R1. A.2. Conventional Post-Training Paradigm Post-training has emerged as an essential step in refining pre-trained LLMs to meet specific performance goals and align with human expectations. A widely adopted two-stage post- training framework is SFT followed by RL (Ouyang et al., 2022). Supervised Fine-Tuning refines a pre-trained LLM by training it on a curated dataset of input- output pairs tailored to specific tasks. The process employs a supervised learning objective, typically minimizing cross-entropy loss between the model’s predictions and labeled ground truth (Brown et al., 2020). For instance, in conversational applications, SFT might utilize dialogue datasets where desired responses are explicitly provided, enabling the model to adapt its outputs to predefined standards (Radford et al., 2019). SFT offers several compelling benefits. First, it achieves precise task alignment by leveraging high-quality examples, allowing the model to 13
correct option is matched. • Logic dataset contains 15k questions designed to evaluate a model’s reasoning capabilities across a broad spectrum of logical challenges. The dataset includes both real-world and synthetically generated problems. All problems support automatic evaluation, and the average prompt length is approximately 420 tokens. The real-world portion of the dataset comprises a diverse selection of problems sourced from the web, including brain teasers, classical logic puzzles, and knowledge-intensive questions. These questions are presented in a multiple-choice format to ensure objective and consistent assessment. The synthetic portion consists primarily of two categories: code-IO problems and puzzle tasks. Code- IO problems are generated using the data pipeline introduced by Li et al. (2025), which converts competitive coding problems and their corresponding input-output test cases into verifiable logical reasoning problems. The puzzle tasks include problems intended to assess specific reasoning competencies. For example, cryptography puzzles are designed to evaluate a model’s ability to identify and apply patterns in cipher schemes or perform string manipulations; logic puzzles focus on deductive reasoning over complex constraints, such as inferring valid conclusions from a fixed set of premises (e.g., the Zebra puzzle); and arithmetic puzzles test the model’s numerical reasoning (e.g. probability questions and 24 game). • General dataset consists of 66k questions designed to assess helpfulness, spanning various categories such as creative writing, editing, factual question answering, and role-playing. Additionally, the dataset includes 12,000 questions focused on evaluating harmlessness. To ensure robust verification, two reward models are utilized, each trained on a curated dataset of ranked responses generated by models in relation to helpfulness and harm- lessness, respectively. We trained the helpful reward model for a single epoch with a maximum sequence length of 8192 tokens during the training phase. However, when deploying the model to generate reward signals, we did not impose any explicit length constraints on the input sequences being evaluated. B.3.2. DeepSeek-R1 Cold Start For DeepSeek-R1, we construct and collect a small amount of long CoT data to fine-tune the model as the initial RL actor. The motivation is primarily product-driven, with a strong emphasis on enhancing user experience. Users tend to find responses more intuitive and engaging when the reasoning process aligns with first-person perspective thought patterns. For example, DeepSeek-R1-Zero is more likely to employ the pronoun ’we’ or avoid first-person pronouns altogether during problem solving, whereas DeepSeek-R1 tends to use ’I’ more frequently. Furthermore, we acknowledge that such patterns may elicit unwarranted trust from users. Here, we would like to emphasize that the observed vivid reasoning patterns primarily reflect DeepSeek-engineered heuristics, rather than indicating that the model has inherently acquired human-like intelligence or autonomous problem-solving capabilities. In cold start data creation, we prefer the thinking process that begins with comprehending the problem, followed by detailed reasoning that incorporates reflection and verification. The language employed throughout the thinking process is presented in the first-person perspective. Additionally, maintaining language consistency is crucial for an optimal user experience. With- out proper control, model responses may contain a mixture of different languages, regardless of the language used in the query. Such inconsistencies can disrupt comprehension and reduce user satisfaction. Therefore, careful refinement is essential to ensure that responses remain coherent and aligned with user intent. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the raw Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning produced by DeepSeek-R1-Zero may possess potential that extends beyond the 20
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
Table 7 | Training costs of DeepSeek-R1, assuming the rental price of H800 is $2 per GPU hour. Training Costs DeepSeek-R1-Zero SFT data creation DeepSeek-R1 Total in H800 GPU Hours 101K 5K 41K 147K in USD $202K $10K $82K $294K and also exhibits language mixing during the RL process. The results are shown in Figure 7. As can be seen, without the LC reward, language consistency gradually deteriorates as train- ing steps increase. However, when the LC reward is applied, stable language consistency is maintained throughout the training process. For benchmark performance, the model main- tains comparable performance on the mathematical benchmark, while a slight degradation is observed on the coding benchmark. Although such alignment results in a slight degradation in model performance, this reward aligns with human preferences, making the output more readable.0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Steps 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 LC Reward w/ LC Reward w/o LC Reward 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Steps 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50 LiveCodeBench Pass@1 w/ LC Reward w/o LC Reward 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Steps 0.450 0.475 0.500 0.525 0.550 0.575 0.600 0.625 AIME Accuracy w/ LC Reward w/o LC Reward Figure 7 | The experiment results of Language Consistency (LC) Reward during reinforcement learning. C. Self-Evolution of DeepSeek-R1-Zero C.1. Evolution of Reasoning Capability in DeepSeek-R1-Zero during Training We analyzed DeepSeek-R1-Zero’s performance on the MATH dataset stratified by difficulty levels (1-5). Figure 8 reveals distinct learning patterns: easy problems (levels 1-3) quickly reach high accuracy (0.90-0.95) and remain stable throughout training, while difficult problems show remarkable improvement - level 4 problems improve from near 0.78 to 0.95, and the most challenging level 5 problems demonstrate the most dramatic improvement from near 0.55 to 0.90. One may find it counterintuitive that the model’s accuracy on harder questions (levels 3-4) occasionally surpasses its performance on easier questions (level 1) by a small margin. This apparent anomaly stems from several dataset characteristics. The MATH dataset is unevenly distributed, with level-1 questions comprising only 43 of 500 examples, while higher levels contain approximately 100 questions each. Consequently, the model’s 95-97% accuracy on level-1 represents just 1-2 unsolved problems, primarily in geometry, where the model still struggles. Furthermore, the distribution of mathematical categories (geometry, algebra, etc.) varies across difficulty levels due to the dataset’s construction methodology. It’s also worth noting that these difficulty levels were annotated based on human perception of problem complexity rather than 37
Supports. The ablation is run on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B, not on DeepSeek-R1-Zero, and the result is shown as a single training-curve figure with no reported variance or repeated runs. The same section reports comparable math performance and slight coding degradation with the reward.
Overstates. The ablation, run on a 7B distilled model, measures language consistency and two benchmarks (AIME and LiveCodeBench): math is comparable and coding slightly lower. Readability and alignment with human preferences are asserted, not measured; no human evaluation is reported.
Lineage across 7 claims
Record
- Kind
- unknown
- Authors
- Not recorded
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- Published
- Not recorded
- DOI
- None
- Link
- https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.12948
- Archived copy
- https://web.archive.org/web/20261013192815/https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.12948
- Stored text
- 230,334 characters, retrieved Oct 28, 2026 · 3 sections, 92 passages
- Claims extracted
- For
Claims about readability, language mixing, and legibility of chain of thought under pure reinforcement learning (R1-Zero) versus training with readability interventions (R1).
· 7 claims (7 new) · Oct 28, 2026 for Does RL without legibility pressure push chain of thought away from readable language?
- For
- Versions
- This version
- Later · DeepSeek-R1 incentivizes reasoning in LLMs through reinforcement learning
- Copies
- None recorded
- Corrections
- None recorded
- Facts checked
- Oct 28, 2026
History 6
- Oct 30, 2026ReadingSteward of “In DeepSeek's RL ablation on DeepSeek-R1-Distil…” · supports, read whole
- Oct 30, 2026ReadingSteward of “DeepSeek-R1-Zero produces chain-of-thought resp…” · supports, from the excerpt
- Oct 30, 2026ReadingSteward of “A language-consistency reward improves chain-of…” · overstates, read whole
- Oct 28, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 94 parts by its own structure
- Oct 28, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
- Oct 28, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored