Reinforcement Learning from Verifier Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a widely used approach for post-training large language models on reasoning tasks, with group-based methods such as GRPO and its variants gaining broad adoption. These methods rely on group-relative advantage estimation to avoid learned critics, yet its theoretical properties remain poorly understood. In this work, we characterize conditional estimation bias in group-relative advantages among non-degenerate groups. For mean-centered advantages under binary rewards, our analysis shows negative conditional mean estimation errors for hard prompts and positive errors for easy prompts. At the response level, correct answers to hard prompts are underweighted, while incorrect answers to easy prompts receive insufficient penalties. To address this issue, we propose History-Aware Adaptive Difficulty Weighting (HA-DW), an adaptive reweighting scheme that adjusts advantage estimates based on an evolving difficulty anchor and training dynamics. Both theoretical analysis and experiments on five mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that HA-DW consistently improves performance when integrated into GRPO and its variants. Our results suggest that correcting biased advantage estimation is critical for robust and efficient RLVR training.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Comparison of the performance of RL algorithms with and without HA-DW on Qwen3-4B-Base across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks. (b) Significant biased advantage estimation on the MATH dataset under 8 and 128 rollouts. (c) Performance gain by GRPO+HA-DW on MATH500 stratified by difficulty levels.
Figure 2: HA-DW consists of two collaborative phases. In the first phase, an evolving difficulty anchor incorporates cross-batch historical information by propagating the model’s prior through a history buffer, capturing long-term reward trends. In the second phase, prompt weights are adaptively adjusted based on their estimated difficulty under the model’s evolving state, compensating for biased advantage estimates.
Algorithm
Math
Code
MATH500
AIME25
AMC23
Minerva
OlympiadBench
Avg.
HumanEval
MBPP
Avg.
Qwen-3-4B-Base
GRPO
75.4
19.6
60.3
33.8
43.5
46.5
70.1
58.2
64.2
↪ + HA-DW
78.0
20.4
63.4
36.8
44.7
48.7
73.2
60.4
66.8
GSPO
75.8
20.0
62.2
35.3
42.3
47.1
69.5
58.6
64.1
↪ + HA-DW
77.6
19.6
68.6
37.1
43.2
49.2
72.0
59.4
65.7
Table 1: Overall results across models (Qwen, LLaMA) and different group-relative RL algorithms (GRPO, GSPO, DAPO). We report the performance of different base RL algorithms, and the corresponding accuracy when applied HA-DW for each model scale and family.
Threshold
MATH500
AIME25
AMC23
Minerva
OlympiadBench
AVG
Base
75.4
19.6
60.3
33.8
43.5
46.5
0.4 (fixed)
77.0
18.5
63.1
37.5
44.3
48.1
0.5 (fixed)
76.6
20.0
62.7
35.7
44.0
47.8
0.6 (fixed)
76.8
21.3
61.1
36.4
44.3
48.0
Ct
78.0
20.4
63.4
36.8
44.7
48.7
Table 2: Ablation on the effectiveness of dynamic threshold for RL training using Qwen3-4B-Base. Ct denotes the dynamic threshold.
Figure 3: Comparison of training dynamics under different training strategies. Average accuracy across five benchmarks, training reward and response length of Qwen3-4B-Base and Qwen3-8B-Base on different training methods.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
G
P(G,0,0.25)
2
0.999997499987
4
0.999995948256
6
0.827761785622
8
0.781129955681
Appendix
Table 3: P(G,0,0.25) as a function of G∈[2,8] .
G
P(G,0,0.5)
2
0.999994999975
4
0.776965795853
6
0.689721502158
8
0.640944744224
Appendix
Table 4: P(G,0,0.5) as a function of G∈[2,8] .
G
2G∫02/Gf(pt)dpt
2
0.499997499987
3
0.749995833315
4
0.776965795853
5
0.780787089465
6
0.781154327380
Appendix
Table 5: 2G∫02/Gf(pt)dpt as a function of G∈[2,6] .
Figure 4: Curve of the normalization term 1/pt(1−pt) with respect to pt .
Figure 5: Illustration of advantage bias under truncated Gaussian rewards for different group sizes.
Dataset
8
16
8+HA-DW
MATH500
75.4
76.2
78.0
AIME25
19.6
19.2
20.4
AMC23
60.3
61.6
63.4
Minerva
33.8
34.2
36.8
OlympiadBench
43.5
43.9
44.7
Appendix
Table 6: Performance of Qwen3-4B-Base trained with: Rollout=8 with GRPO, Rollout=16 with GRPO and Rollout=8 with GRPO+HA-DW. Rollout=32 with GRPO is out of memory .
Method
MATH500
AIME25
AMC23
Minerva
OlympiadBench
AVG
GRPO
75.4
19.6
60.3
33.8
43.5
46.5
GRPO + HA-DW (Hard Prompts Only)
77.4
20.6
62.8
35.7
44.3
48.2
GRPO + HA-DW
78.0
20.4
63.4
36.8
44.7
48.7
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation of HA-DW on easy prompts using Qwen3-4B-Base. The hard-prompt-only variant applies HA-DW reweighting only to hard prompts, while leaving easy-prompt updates unchanged.
Method
Rollout Token Budget
MATH500
AIME25
AMC23
Minerva
OlympiadBench
AVG
GRPO
120M
75.4
19.6
60.3
33.8
43.5
46.5
GRPO + HA-DW
120M
77.4
19.8
62.7
35.9
44.3
48.0
Appendix
Table 8: Performance under a matched rollout-token budget. GRPO and GRPO+HA-DW use the same group size, maximum generation length, and total budget of 120M generated response tokens.
Method
MATH500
AIME25
AMC23
Minerva
OlympiadBench
AVG
GRPO
75.4
19.6
60.3
33.8
43.5
46.5
GRPO + Reward Noise
72.6
16.7
56.9
30.9
40.6
43.5
GRPO + HA-DW
78.0
20.4
63.4
36.8
44.7
48.7
GRPO + HA-DW + Reward Noise
73.4
16.3
58.1
31.8
40.9
44.1
Appendix
Table 9: Robustness of HA-DW under injected reward noise on hard prompts using Qwen3-4B-Base.
λscale
MATH500
AIME25
AMC23
Minerva
OlympiadBench
AVG
0.5
75.4
18.1
61.1
34.2
43.7
46.5
0.8
76.8
19.2
61.3
34.9
43.7
47.2
1.0
76.8
18.5
61.6
36.0
44.3
47.4
1.3
78.0
20.4
63.4
36.8
44.7
48.7
1.5
77.8
20.8
63.1
37.1
44.0
48.6
1.7
76.4
20.0
63.4
36.4
44.3
48.1
Appendix
Table 10: Performance of Qwen3-4B-Base trained with GRPO+HA-DW on different λscale .
Algorithm
IFEval
GPQA
API-Bank
AVG
Qwen3-4B-Base
GRPO
32.3
26.2
62.1
40.2
GRPO+HA-DW
34.0
27.8
63.6
41.8
GSPO
32.0
26.8
61.2
40.0
GSPO+HA-DW
33.1
26.3
60.7
40.0
DAPO
31.1
27.2
62.6
40.3
Appendix
Table 11: Performance comparison on instruction following and tool-use benchmarks.
Benchmark
GRPO (mean ± std, N=5)
HA-DW (mean ± std, N=5)
Average Improvement
P-Value
MATH500
75.44 ± 0.30
77.88 ± 0.23
+2.44
3.08×10−5
AIME25
19.04 ± 0.61
20.44 ± 0.30
+1.40
7.59×10−3
AMC23
60.42 ± 0.34
63.58 ± 0.41
+3.16
6.71×10−6
Minerva
33.68 ± 0.41
36.78 ± 0.25
+3.10
4.33×10−4
OlympiadBench
43.42 ± 0.44
44.88 ± 0.20
+1.46
1.20×10−3
Appendix
Table 12: Significance analysis of HA-DW against GRPO on Qwen3-4B-Base over five independent runs.
Figure 6: The distribution of prompts by the number of correct and incorrect responses on the MATH dataset and DAPO-Math-17k under 8 and 128 rollouts of Qwen3-4B-Base.
Hyperparameter
GRPO
GRPO+HA-DW
GSPO
GSPO+HA-DW
DAPO
DAPO+HA-DW
General
nnode
1
1
1
1
1
1
gpus per node
8
8
8
8
8
8
use kl in reward
False
False
False
False
False
False
use kl loss
False
False
False
False
False
False
tensor parallel size
1
1
1
1
1
1
test frequency
5
5
5
5
5
5
Appendix
Table 13: Hyperparameter settings for group-relative methods.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is commonly based on group sampling to estimate advantages and stabilize policy updates. In practice, computational limits often rule out very large groups, so training proceeds with finite rollout sets that can reinforce only the correct behavior they expose. At practical group sizes, updates can miss rare-correct trajectories while still containing mixed rewards, concentrating probability on more common sampled solutions. We derive the probability of such prompt-local tail-miss events as a function of group size, showing non-monotonic behavior, and in the categorical abstraction characterize how unsampled-correct mass can shrink even as total correct mass grows. Motivated by this analysis, we propose a difficulty-aware scaling coefficient, inspired by Focal loss, that down-weights updates on high-success sampled groups. Empirically, categorical simulation illustrates the same effect in the categorical setting, Maze provides a single-solution test, and LLM experiments include a representative GRPO group-size sweep together with fixed-N transfer across GRPO, DAPO, and CISPO. On Qwen2.5-7B at N=8, our method improves average math pass@256 from 64.1 → 70.3 (GRPO), 69.3 → 72.5 (DAPO), and 73.2 → 76.8 (CISPO); OOD pass@256 also improves in all three cases, without increasing group size or computational cost.
Daniil Plyusov, Alexey Gorbatovski, Boris Shaposhnikov +4
T-Tech · Saint Petersburg Electrotechnical University “LETI”
Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) typically samples multiple responses per prompt and assigns binary rewards based on individual correctness, yet the collective structure of the group output, specifically the distribution of errors, is largely discarded. We identify this as a missed opportunity: empirical analysis reveals that error diversity within a group is a strong predictor of training success, with problems eliciting diverse wrong answers benefiting substantially more from RLVR than those producing homogeneous failures. Motivated by this observation, we propose Error Diversity Advantage Shaping (EDAS), a lightweight, algorithm-agnostic technique that modulates the advantage signal for incorrect rollouts based on intra-group error diversity. EDAS amplifies penalties for dominant, repeated errors and attenuates penalties for rare, exploratory ones, thereby encouraging the model to maintain diverse reasoning paths and discouraging error perseveration. Crucially, EDAS operates as a simple post-hoc adjustment that can be seamlessly integrated into any RLVR algorithm. We validate EDAS on top of several mainstream RLVR methods across a series of models and seven challenging math benchmarks, demonstrating consistent improvements. Notably, EDAS yields an average improvement of 6.29 points over DAPO on Qwen3-8B across seven benchmarks, confirming that exploiting the latent information in group rollouts is a broadly effective strategy for strengthening RLVR.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), particularly GRPO, has become the standard for eliciting LLM reasoning. However, its efficiency in exploration and difficulty adaptation remains an open challenge. In this work, we identify an implicit advantage symmetry inherent in Group Relative Advantage Estimation (GRAE) as a structural property that provides a new perspective for understanding these bottlenecks. This symmetry induces two critical limitations: (i) at the group level, strict symmetry in weights between correct and incorrect trajectories leaves unsampled action logits unchanged, thereby hindering the exploration of novel correct solution. (ii) at the sample level, the algorithm implicitly prioritizes medium-difficulty samples, remaining agnostic to the non-stationary demands of difficulty focus. Through controlled experiments, we reveal that this symmetric property is sub-optimal, yielding two pivotal insights: (i) asymmetrically down-weighting the advantages of correct trajectories encourages essential exploration but risks instability; (ii) learning efficiency can be boosted by a curriculum-like transition-prioritizing simpler samples initially before gradually shifting to complex ones. Motivated by these findings, we propose Asymmetric GRAE (A-GRAE), which dynamically modulates exploration incentives and sample-difficulty focus. Experiments across seven benchmarks demonstrate that A-GRAE consistently improves GRPO and its variants across both LLMs and MLLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/HKU-HealthAI/A-GRAE
Zhiqi Yu, Zhangquan Chen, Mengting Liu +2
University of Hong Kong · Tsinghua University · Sun Yat-sen University