Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has catalyzed a leap in Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning, yet its optimization dynamics remain fragile. Standard algorithms like GRPO enforce stability via "hard clipping", which inadvertently stifles exploration by discarding gradients of tokens outside the trust region. While recent "soft clipping" methods attempt to recover these gradients, they suffer from a critical challenge: relying on log-probability gradient (∇θlogπθ) yields divergent weights as probabilities vanish, destabilizing LLM training. We rethink this convention by establishing probability gradient (∇θπθ) as the superior optimization primitive. Accordingly, we propose Decoupled Gradient Policy Optimization (DGPO), which employs a decoupled decay mechanism based on importance sampling ratios. By applying asymmetric, continuous decay to boundary tokens, DGPO resolves the conflict between stability and sustained exploration. Extensive experiments across DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen series models (1.5B/7B/14B) demonstrate that DGPO consistently outperforms strong baselines on various mathematical benchmarks, offering a robust and scalable solution for RLVR. Our code and implementation are available at: https://github.com/FlyTune/DGPO-RL.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Schematic overview of our DGPO algorithm. While “hard clipping” methods (GRPO/ASPO) discard gradients at boundaries, and prior “soft clipping” approaches (CISPO/GPPO/CE-GPPO) risk divergence on the left boundary and limit exploration on the right boundary, DGPO optimizes the gradient decay mechanism accordingly. By enforcing a controlled “Slow Down” behavior for stability and a “Slow Down Gently” behavior to sustain exploration, DGPO effectively resolves the exploration-stability conflict while maintaining minimal bias against the true policy gradient.
Case
Abbrev.
Condition
Left Boundary
LN
wi,t(θ)<1−εlow
(Low ratio, Neg. adv.)
∧A^i<0
Right Boundary
HP
wi,t(θ)>1+εhigh
(High ratio, Pos. adv.)
∧A^i>0
Reverse Left Boundary
LP
wi,t(θ)<1−εlow
(Low ratio, Pos. adv.)
∧A^i>0
Table 1: Definition of clipping regions based on IS ratio wi,t(θ) and advantage A^i . Abbrev. denotes the abbreviation of five cases under different conditions.
Figure 2: Comparative analysis of gradient dynamics. We systematically contrast DGPO with the standard GRPO, prior “soft clipping” enhancements (CISPO, GPPO, and CE-GPPO), and importance sampling improvements (ASPO). The visualization highlights the theoretical properties regarding the exploration capability of clipped tokens and the alignment with the true policy gradient, demonstrating DGPO’s superior stability and gradient consistency.
Table 2: Comparative analysis of gradient bias. We evaluate the bias magnitudes of DGPO and other baselines relative to the true policy gradient under different boundary conditions.
Method
AIME24
AIME25
AMC23
MATH500
Minerva
Olympiad
Avg.
A@32
P@32
A@32
P@32
A@32
P@32
A@32
P@32
A@32
P@32
A@32
P@32
A@32
P@32
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
GRPO
33.2
71.8
27.7
49.9
79.5
94.8
77.6
90.8
26.1
48.8
46.3
64.7
48.4
70.1
CISPO
34.8
69.1
25.8
53.3
76.9
94.9
76.8
91.8
26.5
54.2
45.8
65.8
47.8
71.5
GPPO
29.6
60.5
23.5
51.9
73.5
94.1
76.3
89.1
26.6
50.0
43.9
64.2
45.6
68.3
CE-GPPO
35.1
70.2
27.7
55.1
82.5
95.0
76.7
90.2
27.8
50.5
45.6
63.1
49.2
70.7
Table 3: Comparison results of different methods on various benchmarks. Avg@32 (%) and Pass@32 (%) are abbreviated as A@32 and P@32. The best results are bold , and the second-best results are underlined , respectively.
Figure 3: Comprehensive comparison of training dynamics and performance. Top row: DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B results. Bottom row: DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B results. Columns (L-R): Pass@K on AIME25, Avg@32 on AIME24/25, policy entropy, followed by hyperparameter analysis for Avg@32 and entropy.
Figure 4: Comparison of gradient weight distributions (Prob: Probability, Grad: Gradient). (a) Overall distribution. (b) Detailed scatter plots of grad weight vs. IS ratio (top row) and prob (bottom row) across three methods: GRPO (left), GPPO (middle), and DGPO (right). Points are colored by advantage. (c) Boundary distribution analysis.
Method
1.5B
7B
14B 1 1 1 The performance fluctuation is attributed to the base model difference: 1.5B/7B models are derived from Qwen-2.5-Math, whereas the 14B model is derived from Qwen-2.5-Base.
(A / P)
(A / P)
(A / P)
GRPO
48.4 / 70.1
58.9 / 77.2
53.6 / 67.4
DGPO
52.7 / 73.0
62.0 / 77.9
56.7 / 70.4
Improvement
+4.3 / +2.9
+3.1 / +0.7
+3.1 / +3.0
Table 4: Scalability analysis of average Avg@32 (A) and Pass@32 (P) across 1.5B, 7B, and 14B models.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Bias Type
Mathematical Definition
In-Boundary Bias
BiasAlgoM=∇θJAlgoM(θ)−∇θJPGM(θ)
Left-Boundary Bias
BiasAlgoLN=∇θJAlgoLN(θ)−∇θJPGLN(θ)
Right-Boundary Bias
BiasAlgoHP=∇θJAlgoHP(θ)−∇θJPGHP(θ)
Reverse Left-Boundary Bias
BiasAlgoLP=∇θJAlgoLP(θ)−∇θJPGLP(θ)
Reverse Right-Boundary Bias
BiasAlgoHN=∇θJAlgoHN(θ)−∇θJPGHN(θ)
Appendix
Table 5: Definition of bias relative to Policy Gradient
The 2024 edition of the American Invitational Mathematics Examination, serving as a bridge between the AMC and the USAMO.
• Focuses on arithmetic precision and number theory. • Requires answers in a strict integer format (000–999). • Tests robustness against recent contamination.
AIME 2025
The most recent iteration of the AIME competition, representing a strictly “held-out” set for evaluating generalization to unseen problems.
• Zero data contamination risk due to recency. • High complexity requiring multi-step logical chains. • Validates the model’s potential for future reasoning.
AMC 2023
Selected problems from the 2023 American Mathematics Competitions (AMC 10/12), representing the entry-level olympiad difficulty.
• Covers broad topics: Algebra, Geometry, Counting. • Functions as a baseline for competitive math ability. • Requires mapping multiple-choice logic to open-ended generation.
MATH-500
A curated subset of 500 representative problems from the widely used MATH dataset, designed by OpenAI for efficient evaluation.
• Spans 7 categories including Calculus and Probability. • Reduces evaluation costs while maintaining distribution fidelity. • Heavily relies on LaTeX understanding.
Minerva
A collection of technical mathematics problems derived from scientific papers and undergraduate-level coursework.
• Involves higher-order symbolic reasoning. • Contains domain-specific vocabulary and notation. • Tests capabilities beyond standard competition math.
OlympiadBench
A comprehensive aggregate of international mathematics competitions (e.g., IMO, CMO) spanning multiple languages and formats.
• Represents the upper bound of mathematical reasoning. • Includes theorem proving and fill-in-the-blank types. • Challenges the model’s cross-lingual mathematical logic.
Appendix
Table 11: Detailed comparison of the mathematical reasoning benchmarks used in this study.
Model Scale
Algorithm
Learning Rate
Specific Hyperparameters
Common Settings: Mini-batch Size = 32, Rollout Batch Size = 512, Max Length = 8192
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
GRPO
1.0×10−6
εlow=εhigh=0.2
CISPO
εlow=εhigh=0.2
GPPO
εlow=εhigh=0.2
CE-GPPO
εlow=εhigh=0.2,β1=0.75,β2=1
ASPO
εlow=εhigh=0.2,εlow′=0.33,εhigh′=3
Appendix
Table 12: Detailed hyperparameter configurations for all experiments. To ensure a fair comparison, we maintain identical training settings across all algorithms, varying only the learning rate according to the model scale.
Figure 5: Training dynamics of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B comparing GRPO and DGPO.
Method
AIME24
AIME25
AMC23
MATH500
Minerva
Olympiad
Avg.
A@32
P@32
A@32
P@32
A@32
P@32
A@32
P@32
A@32
P@32
A@32
P@32
A@32
P@32
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B
GRPO
56.6
82.9
40.5
67.8
92.2
97.4
66.5
70.4
22.6
35.3
43.2
50.7
53.6
67.4
DGPO
63.3
86.2
47.6
66.4
93.9
99.1
67.0
75.1
23.0
37.9
45.1
57.4
56.7
70.4
Appendix
Table 13: Full performance comparison on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become the dominant paradigm for advanced reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs), but rollout samples are expensive to obtain, making sample efficiency a critical bottleneck. A natural remedy is to reuse each rollout batch for multiple gradient updates, a standard practice in classical RL. Yet in RLVR, this amplifies policy shift, leading to severe performance degradation. Detecting the onset of degradation early enough to stop reuse remains an open and challenging problem. We close this gap by identifying the Disproportionate Weight Divergence (DWD) phenomenon: performance degradation is synchronized with a sharp surge in the lm\_head weight change, while intermediate layers remain stable. Empirically, we verify that DWD emerges consistently across diverse LLMs and tasks. Theoretically, we prove that (i) harmful gradients concentrate at the lm\_head while intermediate layers are structurally attenuated, and (ii) the lm\_head gradient norm lower-bounds the policy divergence. These results establish the lm\_head gradient norm as a principled, real-time signal of catastrophic policy shift. Guided by this insight, we propose Dynamic Gradient Gating (DGG), a lightweight intervention that monitors the lm\_head gradient norm in real time and intercepts harmful gradients before they corrupt the optimizer. DGG consistently matches or exceeds the standard single-use baseline, achieving up to 2.93× sample efficiency and 2.14× wall-clock speedup across math, ALFWorld, WebShop, and search-augmented QA tasks.
Yuchun Miao, Sen Zhang, Yuqi Zhang +4
National Engineering Research Center for Multimedia Software, School of Computer Science, Wuhan University · Meituan Longcat Team · The University of Sydney +1
Existing Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) algorithms, such as GRPO, rely on rigid, uniform, and symmetric trust region mechanisms that are fundamentally misaligned with the complex optimization dynamics of Large Language Models (LLMs). In this paper, we identify three critical challenges in these methods: (1) inefficient gradient utilization caused by the binary cutoff of hard clipping, (2) insensitive probability mass arising from uniform ratio constraints that ignore the token distribution, and (3) asymmetric signal reliability stemming from the disparate credit assignment ambiguity between positive and negative samples. To bridge these gaps, we propose Mass-Adaptive Soft Policy Optimization (MASPO), a unified framework designed to harmonize these three dimensions. MASPO integrates a differentiable soft Gaussian gating to maximize gradient utility, a mass-adaptive limiter to balance exploration across the probability spectrum, and an asymmetric risk controller to align update magnitudes with signal confidence. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that MASPO serves as a robust, all-in-one RLVR solution, significantly outperforming baselines. Our code is available at: https://github.com/FlyTune/MASPO-RL.
Xiaoliang Fu, Jiaye Lin, Yangyi Fang +7
Meituan · Fudan University · Tsinghua University +2
Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a key component of post-training large language models (LLMs). In practice, LLM RL is often off-policy because of training-inference mismatch and policy staleness, making trust-region control essential for stable optimization. Mainstream methods such as PPO and GRPO approximate this control with a ratio-clipping mechanism, but the importance ratio can be a poor proxy for distributional shift in long-tailed vocabularies. Recent work such as DPPO addresses this mismatch by replacing ratio-based clipping with a divergence-based mask, yielding a trust region defined by the sampled token's absolute probability shift. However, DPPO still relies on a hard mask: once a token crosses the trust-region boundary in a harmful direction, its gradient is discarded rather than corrected. To address this, we propose Divergence Regularized Policy Optimization (DRPO), which replaces the hard mask with a smooth advantage-weighted quadratic regularizer on policy shift. DRPO preserves the same trust-region geometry as DPPO while inducing bounded, continuous gradient weights that attenuate diverging updates and provide corrective signals beyond the boundary. Experiments across model scales, architectures, and precision settings show that DRPO improves the stability and efficiency of LLM RL training.