Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a powerful paradigm for improving the reasoning abilities of large language models, yet group-based methods lose their learning signal when every sampled response receives zero reward. We propose Group Contrastive Policy Optimization (GCPO), a hybrid objective that preserves standard on-policy optimization for informative rollout groups and activates a proximal contrastive objective only when exploration completely fails. The auxiliary objective pairs an offline golden reasoning trajectory with the current policy's failed responses, thereby providing a reliable positive reference and prompt-specific hard negatives without treating the golden trajectory as an on-policy rollout. Its old-policy token probabilities are evaluated through teacher forcing and used solely to constrain the update, rather than as an importance-sampling correction for the teacher distribution. A first-order analysis shows that the resulting update increases a length-normalized likelihood margin between reliable reasoning and observed failures. Experiments across two model scales and 10 core mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that GCPO improves training efficiency and final reasoning performance over competitive supervised and RLVR baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Training dynamics of GCPO. (a) Ratio of all-wrong rollout groups. (b) Validation accuracy of GCPO and RLVR baselines. Solid lines show smoothed trends; lighter lines show raw values.
Figure 2: Overview of GCPO. An all-wrong group activates a proximal contrastive objective between an offline golden reference and online failures.
Figure 3: Golden trajectory construction using a strong teacher model or human expert.
Method
GSM8K
Minerva Math
SVAMP
ASDiv
MAWPS
TabMWP
MMLU STEM
AIME 2024
AIME 2025
Olympiad Bench
Avg.
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
Base
43.30
34.60
57.00
59.90
67.90
41.50
10.90
17.81
19.21
36.37
38.85
+ SFT
30.60
33.80
31.00
31.00
33.80
31.70
27.00
16.46
19.58
37.48
29.24
+ GRPO
40.80
43.40
45.20
49.20
59.70
31.20
24.90
13.33
20.92
39.35
36.80
+ DAPO
51.60
34.20
65.90
67.70
74.20
50.00
14.90
18.44
23.37
46.67
44.70
+ GSPO
53.80
55.40
53.00
54.10
63.80
44.40
32.70
18.02
20.47
40.67
43.64
Table 1: Pass@1 accuracy (%) on 10 mathematical reasoning benchmarks. Avg. denotes the mean over all reported benchmarks. The best result within each model scale is shown in bold.
Figure 4: Answer quality and policy dynamics of GCPO and DAPO.
Config
Setting
Config
Setting
Optimizer
AdamW
Training epochs
3
Training batch size
128
Mini-batch size
64
Learning rate
1.0×10−6
Warmup ratio
0.1
Generations per prompt
16
Max prompt length
2,048
Max completion length
14,336
Clip ratio low
0.20
Clip ratio high
0.28
Top- p
0.95
Table 2: Training hyperparameters shared by all methods.