Current reinforcement learning objectives for large-model reasoning primarily focus on maximizing expected rewards. This paradigm can lead to overfitting to dominant reward signals, while neglecting alternative yet valid reasoning trajectories, thereby limiting diversity and exploration. To address this issue, we introduce Learning Advantage Distributions (LAD), a distribution-matching framework that replaces advantage maximization with learning the advantage-induced distribution. By establishing the equivalence between the optimal policy update and an advantage-based target distribution, we derive a practical LAD objective formulated as minimizing an f-divergence between the policy-induced and advantage-induced distributions. This yields a gradient update that increases likelihood for high-advantage responses while suppressing over-confident probability growth, preventing collapse without requiring auxiliary entropy regularization. LAD incurs no extra training cost compared to GRPO and scales naturally to LLM post-training. In a controlled bandit setting, LAD faithfully recovers the multimodal advantage distribution, validating the theoretical formulation. Experiments on math and code reasoning tasks across several LLM backbones show that LAD reliably improves both accuracy and generative diversity.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Advantage distribution and policy distribution on 50-arm bandit trained via different training objectives.
Figure 2: Learning dynamics of GRPO, the theoretical LAD loss , and the practical LAD loss . The loss landscape is constructed with the practical LAD loss. Top: LAD loss under Hellinger distance. Bottom: LAD loss under Jensen–Shannon divergence.
Methods
MATH
Olympiad Bench
Minerva
AIME 2024
AIME 2025
AMC
Average
GRPO ( Shao et al., 2024 )
75.57
39.47
36.32
14.03
4.86
53.44
37.28
EntAdv ( Cheng et al., 2025 )
76.60
41.16
35.68
15.00
7.23
52.97
38.11
KLCov ( Cui et al., 2025b )
76.40
40.13
36.28
14.66
9.81
53.45
38.46
ClipCov ( Cui et al., 2025b )
76.03
40.30
37.58
16.29
7.39
52.27
38.31
FlowRL ( Zhu et al., 2025 )
77.17
40.80
36.21
14.67
7.51
47.34
37.28
LAD
77.66
41.25
36.68
19.60
8.84
56.45
40.08
Table 1: Performance of different losses on math reasoning benchmarks. The best two results under Avg@32 are highlighted in bold and underlined .
Method
LiveCodeBench
HumanEval+
CodeForces
Avg@16
Pass@16
Avg@16
Pass@16
Rating
Percentile
GRPO ( Shao et al., 2024 )
32.46
51.25
80.90
93.25
1355.35
70.30 %
EntAdv ( Cheng et al., 2025 )
32.75
50.90
81.05
95.09
1382.78
72.20%
KLCov ( Cui et al., 2025b )
29.50
50.18
80.75
95.09
1373.07
71.60%
ClipCov ( Cui et al., 2025b )
32.10
51.97
81.48
94.49
1473.09
79.20%
FLowRL ( Zhu et al., 2025 )
33.24
51.61
81.29
95.09
1364.70
71.00%
Table 2: Performance of different losses on code reasoning benchmarks. The best two results under a specific metric are highlighted in bold and underlined .
Methods
MATH
Olympiad Bench
Minerva
AIME 2024
AIME 2025
AMC
Average
OpenMath-Nemotron-1.5B: Avg@32
FlowRL
80.43
45.81
21.02
21.36
22.66
55.47
41.13
LAD
86.81
55.63
22.98
32.70
26.47
68.71
48.88
OpenMath-Nemotron-1.5B: Pass@32
FlowRL
94.60
65.93
38.24
56.35
37.60
80.65
66.98
LAD
97.20
78.52
42.28
72.29
54.38
89.08
72.29
Table 3: Performance of LAD and FlowRL on different LLM backbones. The best result is highlighted in bold .
Methods
dist-3( ↑ )
dist-4( ↑ )
GPT4-Judge( ↑ )
GRPO
0.2306
0.2902
2.04
EntAdv
0.2978
0.3782
2.07
KLCov
0.2471
0.3262
2.07
ClipCov
0.3315
0.4171
2.10
FLowRL
0.2878
0.3654
2.38
LAD
0.3498
0.4442
2.58
Table 4: Generative diversity results of on rollouts of AIME 24/25 problems. The best two results under a specific metric are highlighted in bold and underlined .
Figure 7
Figure 5: The distribution of GPU time per token throughout the training process.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: The average advantage value and the log-ratio of ∣logπold(y∣x)πθ(y∣x)∣ throughout the training.
Table 5: LAD losses under different divergences. The ∗ represents the corresponding divergence class is a strict divergence that forces exact matching at its minimum.
Methods
1/η
MATH
Olympiad Bench
Minerva
AIME 2024
AIME 2025
AMC
Average
Avg@16
GRPO
-
75.71
39.24
36.63
13.89
4.90
53.39
37.29
LAD-JS
1/4
75.24
38.83
35.59
15.68
5.70
50.34
36.90
1/2
76.20
38.02
38.07
18.15
6.73
53.08
38.38
1
74.84
37.16
39.84
14.95
11.28
55.98
39.00
2
76.90
36.50
34.93
18.67
9.13
55.12
38.54
Appendix
Table 6: The detailed math reasoning performances of LAD with different hyperparameters.
Methods
MATH
Olympiad Bench
Minerva
AIME 2024
AIME 2025
AMC
Average
GRPO ( Shao et al., 2024 )
90.60
60.15
55.88
30.52
26.77
80.50
57.40
EntAdv ( Cheng et al., 2025 )
90.60
62.51
55.51
35.83
34.27
81.93
60.10
KLCov ( Cui et al., 2025b )
92.80
64.15
56.99
36.25
41.25
85.99
63.04
ClipCov ( Cui et al., 2025b )
91.40
61.48
60.29
37.40
32.08
80.61
60.54
FlowRL ( Zhu et al., 2025 )
94.20
69.04
59.56
37.50
35.52
82.94
63.13
LAD
93.80
67.70
59.93
47.19
37.08
88.86
65.76
Appendix
Table 7: Pass@32 performance of different losses on math reasoning benchmarks. The best two results under a specific metric are highlighted in bold and underlined .
Methods
k
MATH
Olympiad Bench
Minerva
AIME 2024
AIME 2025
AMC
Average
Avg@ k
LAD-KL
@1
76.80
37.33
38.97
20.00
5.83
51.13
38.01
@16
76.35
36.93
39.18
20.03
4.64
51.74
38.15
@32
76.20
36.83
38.73
19.91
4.68
51.63
37.99
LAD-JF
@1
72.60
32.74
37.13
15.52
7.50
53.69
36.20
@16
72.65
32.54
34.92
15.96
7.23
53.47
36.13
Appendix
Table 8: Performance of different losses on math reasoning benchmarks. The best two results under a specific metric are highlighted in bold and underlined .
Reinforcement learning (RL) post-training has recently driven major gains in long chain-of-thought reasoning large language models (LLMs), but the high inference cost of such models motivates distillation into smaller students. Most existing knowledge distillation (KD) methods are designed for supervised fine-tuning (SFT), relying on fixed teacher traces or teacher-student Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence-based regularization. When combined with RL, these approaches often suffer from distribution mismatch and objective interference: teacher supervision may not align with the student's evolving rollout distribution, and the KL regularizer can compete with reward maximization and require careful loss balancing. To address these issues, we propose RL-aware distillation (RLAD), which performs selective imitation during RL -- guiding the student toward the teacher only when it improves the current policy update. Our core component, Trust Region Ratio Distillation (TRRD), replaces the teacher-student KL regularizer with a PPO/GRPO-style likelihood-ratio objective anchored to a teacher--old-policy mixture, yielding advantage-aware, trust-region-bounded distillation on student rollouts and naturally balancing exploration, exploitation, and imitation. Across diverse logic reasoning and math benchmarks, RLAD consistently outperforms offline distillation, standard GRPO, and KL-based on-policy teacher-student knowledge distillation.
RL with verifiable rewards can substantially improve LLM reasoning, yet standard GRPO-style training often treats easy, hard, and learnable questions alike through uniform sampling and weighting, leading to inefficient compute allocation. We study GRPO by tracking token log-probabilities, group-normalized advantages, and the induced token-level update weights. This reveals three recurring dynamics as training proceeds: (1) confidence inflation, (2) advantage contraction, and (3) hierarchical convergence. These findings suggest that the utility of each update depends strongly on both question difficulty and the model's current competence. Motivated by this, we propose Confidence and Difficulty-adaptive Policy Optimization (CoDaPO), which assigns each question a bounded value from rollout confidence and empirical difficulty. CoDaPO then uses this value to reweight policy updates and resample high-value learnable questions within mini-batches, thereby increasing discovery within the learnable band under a fixed compute budget. Across twelve benchmarks, CoDaPO consistently improves accuracy over existing RL methods. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/tmlr-group/CoDaPO.
Zhanke Zhou, Xiangyu Lu, Chentao Cao +4
1TMLR Group, Department of Computer Science, Hong Kong Baptist University · 2Stanford University · 3Sydney AI Centre, The University of Sydney
Reinforcement learning with verifiers (RLVR) is a central paradigm for improving large language model (LLM) reasoning, yet existing methods often suffer from limited exploration. Policies tend to collapse onto a few reasoning patterns and prematurely stop deep exploration, while conventional entropy regularization introduces only local stochasticity and fails to induce meaningful path-level diversity, leading to weak and unstable learning signals in group-based policy optimization. We propose DSDR, a Dual-Scale Diversity Regularization reinforcement learning framework that decomposes diversity in LLM reasoning into global and coupling components. Globally, DSDR promotes diversity among correct reasoning trajectories to explore distinct solution modes. Locally, it applies a length-invariant, token-level entropy regularization restricted to correct trajectories, preventing entropy collapse within each mode while preserving correctness. The two scales are coupled through a global-to-local allocation mechanism that emphasizes local regularization for more distinctive correct trajectories. We provide theoretical support showing that DSDR preserves optimal correctness under bounded regularization, sustains informative learning signals in group-based optimization, and yields a principled global-to-local coupling rule. Experiments on multiple reasoning benchmarks demonstrate consistent improvements in accuracy and pass@k, highlighting the importance of dual-scale diversity for deep exploration in RLVR. Code is available at https://github.com/SUSTechBruce/DSDR.
Zhongwei Wan, Yun Shen, Zhihao Dou +9
The Ohio State University, USA · Case Western Reserve University, USA · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong +4