Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has recently demonstrated notable success in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of LLMs, particularly in mathematics and programming tasks. It is widely believed that RLVR enables LLMs to continuously self-improve, thus acquiring novel reasoning abilities that exceed corresponding base models' capacity. In this study, however, we critically re-examines this assumption by measuring the pass@\textit{k} metric with large values of \textit{k} to explore the reasoning capability boundary of the models across a wide range of model families and benchmarks. Surprisingly, the RL does \emph{not}, in fact, elicit fundamentally new reasoning patterns. While RL-trained models outperform their base models at smaller values of $k$ (\eg, $k$=1), base models can achieve a comparable or even higher pass@$k$ score compared to their RL counterparts at large $k$ values. The reasoning paths generated by RL-trained models are already included in the base models' sampling distribution, suggesting that most reasoning abilities manifested in RL-trained models are already obtained by base models. Further analysis shows that RL training boosts the performance by biasing the model's output distribution toward paths that are more likely to yield rewards, therefore sampling correct responses more efficiently. But this also results in a narrower reasoning capability boundary compared to base models. Similar results are observed in visual reasoning tasks trained with RLVR. Moreover, we find that distillation can genuinely introduce new knowledge into the model, different from RLVR. These findings underscore a critical limitation of RLVR in advancing LLM reasoning abilities which requires us to fundamentally rethink the impact of RL training in reasoning LLMs and the need of a better paradigm. Project Page: https://limit-of-RLVR.github.io