Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has significantly advanced the reasoning capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, RLVR solely relies on final answers as outcome rewards, neglecting the correctness of intermediate reasoning steps. Training on these process-wrong but outcome-correct rollouts can lead to hallucination and answer-copying, severely undermining the model's generalization and robustness. To address this, we incorporate a Contrastive Learning mechanism into the Policy Optimization (CLIPO) to generalize the RLVR process. By optimizing a contrastive loss over successful rollouts, CLIPO steers the LLM to capture the invariant structure shared across correct reasoning paths. This provides a more robust cross-trajectory regularization than the original single-path supervision in RLVR, effectively mitigating step-level reasoning inconsistencies and suppressing hallucinatory artifacts. In experiments, CLIPO consistently improves multiple RLVR baselines across diverse reasoning benchmarks, demonstrating uniform improvements in generalization and robustness for policy optimization of LLMs. Our code and training recipes are available at https://github.com/Qwen-Applications/CLIPO.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Intuition of CLIPO. Standard RLVR only relies on outcomes, neglecting the quality of intermediate reasoning steps. CLIPO addresses this limitation by maximizing similarity between successful reasoning trajectories. By aligning multiple positive rollouts, CLIPO identifies the invariant reasoning structure, i.e. , the “overlap” of successful paths, implicitly eliminating incorrect and hallucinative reasoning steps.
Figure 2: Framework of CLIPO. For each input prompt x , policy optimization methods generate a group of rollouts {y1,y2,…,yG} then calculate corresponding RLVR rewards {r1,r2,…,rG} . CLIPO applies a contrastive head on the top of the last hidden states {h1,h2,…,hG} of the rollout group and outputs trajectory-level semantic embeddings {e1,e2,…,eG} . The contrastive rewards {r1CL,r2CL,…,rGCL} are computed across the semantic embedding group to provide the similarity of successful and failed trajectories. The final CLIPO reward for the i -th rollout is ri′=ri+riCL .
Methods
GSM8K
SYM
P1
P2
cQA
tQA
thrmQA
MMLU
M-Avg.
G-Avg.
Avg.
Base Model
86.05
82.40
70.90
47.96
73.63
29.99
24.90
68.09
71.83
49.15
60.49
GRPO
87.79
84.04
73.12
50.80
74.94
30.48
27.71
68.19
73.94
50.33
62.13
GSPO
87.19
83.94
73.28
51.36
74.86
30.23
27.38
67.68
73.94
50.04
61.99
DAPO
87.41
84.56
74.70
52.32
76.00
31.58
27.11
69.00
74.75
50.92
62.84
GMPO
86.81
84.02
73.90
49.80
76.33
30.97
26.57
68.49
73.63
50.59
62.11
GRPO+CLIPO
88.02
84.62
74.60
54.16
76.90
31.52
27.58
68.64
75.35
51.16
63.26
Table 1: Performance comparison of different RLVR methods on Track I(GSM8K and General Reasoning). ‘Avg.’ represents the average performance across all datasets, and ‘M-Avg.’ represents the average performance on math-related datasets. ‘G-Avg.’ represents the average performance on general and QA tasks. ‘ Δ ’ represents the improvement after using our method, with light green indicating improvement and light red indicating decline. The best results are highlighted in bold , and the second-best results are underlined .
Methods
Math
Math_S
Math_H
AMC
AIME
AIME25
M-Avg.
C-Avg.
Avg.
Base Model
75.35
59.24
35.31
44.13
10.63
6.25
56.63
20.33
38.48
GRPO
76.46
64.83
37.86
46.84
17.92
9.58
59.72
24.78
42.25
GSPO
77.58
64.56
38.36
50.08
16.25
10.42
60.17
25.58
42.87
DAPO
76.03
66.08
39.94
47.36
19.79
7.92
60.68
25.02
42.85
GMPO
78.47
64.27
37.25
48.42
19.58
9.58
60.00
25.86
42.93
GRPO+CLIPO
77.49
67.21
38.97
49.17
18.13
10.63
61.22
25.97
43.60
Table 2: Performance comparison on Track II(Competition-Level Reasoning). ‘M-Avg.’ represents the average performance on Math, Math_S, Math_H. ‘C-Avg.’ represents the average performance on competition-level datasets including AMC, AIME, and AIME25.
Track
Methods
Metric 1
Metric 2
Avg.
Track I
CLIPO
75.35
51.16
63.26
CLIPO-fixed
74.73
50.24
62.48
Δ
-0.62
-0.92
-0.77
Track II
CLIPO
61.22
25.97
43.60
CLIPO-fixed
60.19
25.06
42.63
Δ
-1.03
-0.91
-0.97
Table 3: Comparison between CLIPO with and without fixed head on Track I and Track II. Metric 1 and Metric 2 represent M-Avg., G-Avg. for Track I, and M-Avg., C-Avg. for Track II, respectively. Δ indicates the performance drop when using fixed head.
Figure 6
τ
Math-Avg.
Comp-Avg.
Avg.
0.2
59.90
24.36
42.13
0.1
59.76
26.81
43.28
0.05
61.28
24.85
43.07
0.02
61.22
25.97
43.60
0.015
60.64
25.19
42.91
Table 5: Effect of different contrastive learning temperature τ on CLIPO performance. It can be observed that lower temperature coefficients lead to better performance improvements; however, excessively low temperature may result in degraded performance.
GroupSize
Math
Math_S
Math_H
AMC
AIME
AIME25
M-Avg.
C-Avg.
Avg.
∣G∣=8
77.41
64.90
38.49
47.67
15.42
8.54
60.27
23.87
42.07
∣G∣=16
77.49
67.21
38.97
49.17
18.13
10.63
61.22
25.97
43.60
∣G∣=32
77.26
66.03
39.89
50.45
20.83
8.33
61.06
26.54
43.80
Table 6: Effect of different group sizes on CLIPO performance. Larger group sizes lead to better performance improvements. The best results are highlighted in bold. It can be observed that larger group sizes generally lead to better performance improvements across Avg. metrics.
Model
Method
Math-Avg.
Comp-Avg.
Avg.
DS-7B
GRPO
79.39
45.38
62.38
+CLIPO
79.28
46.54
62.91
Δ
-0.11
1.17
0.53
Llama-8B
GRPO
34.84
11.42
23.13
+CLIPO
37.10
11.79
24.44
Δ
2.25
0.37
1.31
Table 7: Performance comparison on diverse models.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Category
Parameter
Track I
Track II
General Settings
Total epochs
total_epochs
6
9
Critic warmup epochs
critic_warmup
14 step(1 epoch)
58 step(1 epoch)
Data and Sequence Lengths
Training batch size
train_batch_size
512
128
PPO mini-batch size
ppo_mini_batch_size
256
128
Appendix
Table 8: Default Training Hyperparameters and Configuration on Track I and Track II.
Parameter
Track I
Track II
Contrastive LM Head Settings
Loss type
infonce_loss
infonce_loss
Distance measure
cosine_distance
cosine_distance
Head type
linear
linear
Output size
512
2048
Contrastive temperature
0.05
0.05
Appendix
Table 9: Default Contrastive Head Parameters on Track I and Track II.
Dataset
Instruction Template
GSM8K / GSM-P1 / GSM-P2 / GSM-Symbolic
Let’s think step by step and output the final answer within \boxed{}.
MATH / AMC / AIME / AIME2025
Let’s think step by step and output the final answer within \boxed{}.
TheoremQA
Let’s think step by step and output the final answer within \boxed{}.
MMLU
Let’s think step by step and output the final answer (eg, A, B, C, D) within \boxed{}.
TruthfulQA
Let’s think step by step and output the final answer (eg, A, B, C, D, …) within \boxed{}.
CommonsenseQA
Let’s think step by step and output the final answer (eg, A, B, C, D, E) within \boxed{}.
Appendix
Table 10: Prompt Construction and Instruction Templates
Figure 4: The t-SNE visualization of semantic embeddings produced by the contrastive head at the start of training (left) and after 3 epochs of training (right). Green points represent embeddings from correct rollouts, while red points correspond to incorrect ones. After training, correct responses cluster closely together, forming more distinct group clusters. Within these clusters, correct and incorrect responses also exhibit some separation.
Methods
GSM8K
SYM
P1
P2
cQA
tQA
thrmQA
MMLU
M-Avg.
G-Avg.
Avg.
CLIPO
88.02
84.62
74.60
54.16
76.90
31.52
27.58
68.64
75.35
51.16
63.26
CLIPO-fixed
88.63
85.12
73.48
51.68
75.59
30.11
26.77
68.49
74.73
50.24
62.48
Δ
0.61
0.50
-1.12
-2.48
-1.31
-1.41
-0.80
-0.15
-0.62
-0.92
-0.77
Appendix
Table 11: Performance comparison of fixed-head ablation on Track I. CLIPO-fixed shows performance drops compared to CLIPO across most benchmarks.
Methods
Math
Math_S
Math_H
AMC
AIME
AIME25
M-Avg.
C-Avg.
Avg.
CLIPO
77.49
67.21
38.97
49.17
18.13
10.63
61.22
25.97
43.60
CLIPO-fixed
76.76
64.83
38.99
49.77
17.92
7.50
60.19
25.06
42.63
Δ
-0.73
-2.38
0.02
0.60
-0.21
-3.13
-1.03
-0.91
-0.97
Appendix
Table 12: Performance comparison of fixed-head ablation on Track II. CLIPO-fixed shows performance drops compared to CLIPO across most benchmarks.
Methods
GSM8K
SYM
P1
P2
cQA
tQA
thrmQA
MMLU
M-Avg.
G-Avg.
Avg.
GRPO
87.79
84.04
73.12
50.80
74.94
30.48
27.71
68.19
73.94
50.33
62.13
CLIPO-InfoNCE
88.02
84.62
74.60
54.16
76.90
31.52
27.58
68.64
75.35
51.16
63.26
Δ
0.23
0.58
1.48
3.36
1.97
1.04
-0.13
0.46
1.41
0.83
1.12
CLIPO-SupCon
87.79
85.04
74.00
51.12
77.07
30.23
27.04
69.25
74.49
50.90
62.69
Δ
0.00
1.00
0.88
0.32
2.13
-0.24
-0.67
1.06
0.55
0.57
0.56
CLIPO-SoftNN
87.11
84.70
74.06
53.92
75.27
29.99
27.31
68.59
74.95
50.29
62.62
Appendix
Table 13: Performance comparison of Contrastive Loss Variants on Track I. The improvements ( Δ ) over base method(GRPO) are indicated with positive (green) and negative (red) colors.
Methods
Math
Math_S
Math_H
AMC
AIME
AIME25
M-Avg.
C-Avg.
Avg.
GRPO
76.46
64.83
37.86
46.84
17.92
9.58
59.72
24.78
42.25
CLIPO-InfoNCE
77.49
67.21
38.97
49.17
18.13
10.63
61.22
25.97
43.60
Δ
1.03
2.38
1.11
2.33
0.21
1.04
1.50
1.19
1.35
CLIPO-SupCon
78.18
65.90
38.97
48.42
17.71
6.88
61.01
24.33
42.67
Δ
1.72
1.06
1.11
1.58
-0.21
-2.71
1.30
-0.45
0.43
CLIPO-SoftNN
78.17
65.78
38.02
49.85
20.21
9.58
60.66
26.55
43.60
Appendix
Table 14: Performance comparison of Contrastive Loss Variants on Track II. The improvements ( Δ ) over base method(GRPO) are indicated with positive (green) and negative (red) colors.
Methods
GSM
SYM
P1
P2
cQA
tQA
thrmQA
MMLU
M-Avg.
G-Avg.
Avg.
Base
86.05
82.40
70.90
47.96
73.63
29.99
24.90
68.09
71.83
49.15
60.49
GRPO
87.79
84.04
73.12
50.80
74.94
30.48
27.71
68.19
73.94
50.33
62.13
CLIPO-SoftNN
87.11
84.70
74.06
53.92
75.27
29.99
27.31
68.59
74.95
50.29
62.62
Δ
-0.68
0.66
0.94
3.12
0.33
-0.49
-0.40
0.41
1.01
-0.04
0.48
GSPO
87.19
83.94
73.28
51.36
74.86
30.23
27.38
67.68
73.94
50.04
61.99
CLIPO-SoftNN
87.87
83.92
75.14
51.60
76.33
30.97
27.64
68.44
74.63
50.85
62.74
Appendix
Table 15: Performance comparison of different RLVR methods. CLIPO-SoftNN improves the average performance based on four baseline methods, with the main improvements in M-Avg. tasks, while the improvements in G-Avg. tasks are limited, and even some decreases.
τ
GSM8K
SYM
P1
P2
cQA
tQA
thrmQA
MMLU
M-Avg.
G-Avg.
Avg.
0.2
87.34
84.58
73.42
50.48
76.33
32.74
29.38
67.73
73.95
51.55
62.75
0.1
88.02
85.38
74.50
49.64
75.92
31.95
27.91
68.14
74.39
50.98
62.68
0.05
87.41
85.44
74.86
53.16
75.18
30.42
27.71
68.79
75.22
50.53
62.87
0.02
87.26
85.00
75.64
54.00
75.10
30.17
27.31
68.34
75.48
50.23
62.85
Appendix
Table 16: Performance comparison of different temperature settings on Track I.
τ
Math
Math_S
Math_H
AMC
AIME
AIME25
M-Avg.
C-Avg.
Avg.
0.2
77.13
66.12
36.44
47.67
17.92
7.50
59.90
24.36
42.13
0.1
76.90
65.01
37.36
51.05
18.75
10.63
59.76
26.81
43.28
0.05
77.18
67.14
39.53
48.72
16.04
9.79
61.28
24.85
43.07
0.02
77.49
67.21
38.97
49.17
18.13
10.63
61.22
25.97
43.60
0.015
76.79
66.42
38.72
50.15
17.71
7.71
60.64
25.19
42.91
Appendix
Table 17: Performance comparison of different temperature settings on Track II.
Figure 5: The plot illustrates the average cosine similarity of positive pairs within the same group during training, under different temperature settings. We observe that higher temperature values lead to greater fluctuations in the similarity of positive pairs.
τ
GroupSize
Math
Math_S
Math_H
AMC
AIME
AIME25
M-Avg.
C-Avg.
Avg.
0.05
∣G∣=8
76.56
64.92
38.09
46.69
17.50
10.00
59.86
24.73
42.29
∣G∣=16
77.18
67.14
39.53
48.72
16.04
9.79
61.28
24.85
43.07
∣G∣=32
77.92
64.90
39.37
49.55
21.04
7.08
60.73
25.89
43.31
0.02
∣G∣=8
77.41
64.90
38.49
47.67
15.42
8.54
60.27
23.87
42.07
∣G∣=16
77.49
67.21
38.97
49.17
18.13
10.63
61.22
25.97
43.60
∣G∣=32
77.26
66.03
39.89
50.45
20.83
8.33
61.06
26.54
43.80
Appendix
Table 18: Performance comparison of different group size.
Methods
Math
Math_S
Math_H
AMC
AIME
AIME25
M-Avg.
C-Avg.
Avg.
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B
GRPO
89.70
83.98
64.48
72.59
36.88
26.67
79.39
45.38
62.38
CLIPO
90.08
83.94
63.83
73.80
39.38
26.46
79.28
46.54
62.91
Δ
0.38
-0.05
-0.65
1.20
2.50
-0.21
-0.11
1.17
0.53
Llama3.1-8B-Instruct
GRPO
52.04
40.10
12.39
23.64
10.63
0.00
34.84
11.42
23.13
Appendix
Table 19: Performance comparison on various base models.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) improves LLM reasoning but typically relies on ground-truth (GT) answers, limiting scalability. Voting-based label-free RLVR replace gold supervision with answer-level consensus from model samples. However, collapse arises when the same answer-level signal is used both to estimate rewards and to drive token-level policy optimization, encouraging the model to directly reinforce answer tokens rather than improve reasoning. We propose OM-GRPO, a label-free RLVR framework that decouples reward estimation from policy optimization. OM-GRPO masks gradients on the answer span while retaining answer-level rewards through a soft consensus signal, shifting optimization pressure away from answer tokens. We further introduce Contrast-Augmented Reward, which refines reward estimation via low-cost pairwise comparisons over existing trajectories without additional rollouts. Across diverse reasoning benchmarks and three LLM backbones, OM-GRPO consistently outperforms existing label-free RLVR methods and matches supervised GT-reward training with stable optimization. This stability is particularly beneficial in the Test-Time Training setting, where OM-GRPO surpasses majority voting by 4.24 points.
Yongshi Ye, Liang Zhang, Yidong Chen +2
Xiamen University · Key Laboratory of Digital Protection and Intelligent Processing of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Fujian and Taiwan (Xiamen University), Ministry of Culture and Tourism
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is a powerful paradigm for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, existing RLVR methods typically rely on on-policy optimization from scratch, resulting in high sampling costs and inefficient utilization of accumulated experience. As model capabilities and policy behaviors evolve during training, recent attempts to reuse experience via fixed reasoning trajectories further suffer from policy mismatch. Motivated by these limitations, we argue that experience in RLVR should not be reused as fixed reasoning trajectories, but instead expressed in a policy-adaptive manner. In this work, we propose Experience-Augmented Policy Optimization (EAPO), which leverages a prior RL-optimized policy as an action-level experience prior and selectively injects experience at critical decision points during rollout. To ensure stable and unbiased learning from experience-augmented rollouts, EAPO further incorporates an adapted importance sampling scheme. Experiments on using Qwen-2.5-math 7b and Qwen-3-8B on five different benchmarks demonstrate that EAPO consistently improves reasoning performance over state-of-the-art RLVR methods.
Jinda Lu, Kexin Huang, Junkang Wu +7
University of Science and Technology of China · 2Peking University · 3Dartmouth College +1
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) enhances Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning but is suffer from advantage collapse: when all rollouts of a query receive identical rewards, the group variance vanishes, most damagingly on hard samples, where scaling rollout budgets yields little. We introduce Joint Policy and Prompt Optimization (P O) to mitigate this collapse by alternating continuous policy updates with discrete prompt evolution. P O mines hard samples with a success-rate threshold, evolves reasoning prompts for them with GEPA, and internalizes the elicited trajectories via context distillation, which optimizes each trajectory under the original query and thus removes inference-time prompting, with a Context Ratio Mask (CRM) filtering out extreme likelihood ratios. P O restores critical advantage signals and surpasses the GRPO baseline by up to 8.2 points in average accuracy on six held-out benchmarks across all training datasets and backbones, while also outperforming DAPO and other baselines. The gains are especially pronounced on hard benchmarks, reaching up to 16.3 points above GRPO on average across AIME24 and AIME25. Our findings expose the limits of standard exploration in sparse-reward environments, illuminating the potential of unifying evolutionary algorithms with reinforcement learning. This integration of discrete semantic search and continuous parameter updates provides a self-reinforcing framework that facilitates more effective LLM alignment.
Xinyu Lu, Kaiqi Zhang, Jinglin Yang +6
Chinese Information Processing Laboratory, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences +2