Adapter Thickets: Splitting an RLVR Budget Beats Concentrating It

Majority voting over sampled completions is the workhorse of test-time scaling, and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is the workhorse for making each completion better. The standard pipeline composes the two: train one policy with RLVR, then sample it many times and vote. We show that this composition is lossy. A vote can only overturn mistakes that its voters do not share, and RLVR sharpens a policy such that its samples increasingly make the same mistakes. With every method drawing exactly $160$ completions per problem, training a single LoRA adapter on the full RLVR budget raises single-sample accuracy on every model we test ($1.5$B-$8$B). Yet on three of four models it leaves the majority vote below that of the untrained base model, by up to $4.8$ points. The damage builds during training: voter errors grow steadily more correlated, and the majority vote accuracy peaks early before falling by up to $7.0$ points. The cause is concentration, not RLVR itself. We split the same data and training budget across $K$ LoRA adapters, each trained on its own random disjoint shard, and call the result an . Thickets out-vote the fully trained adapter in all $16$ (model, $K$) settings, and for $K\ge 4$ they stay within $0.8$ points of the base model or above it. A single adapter stopped early, at a thicket member's step count, is a strong control that matches thickets for small $K$. For $K\ge 8$, thickets keep more of RLVR's single-sample gain and out-vote this control in six of eight settings. The cost of concentration also grows with the number of votes: from $16$ to $160$ votes, the thicket's lead over the fully trained adapter widens from $1.3$ to $3.3$ points. When the plan is to sample and vote, an RLVR budget is better spent broad than deep.