On the "Causality" Step in Policy Gradient Derivations: A Pedagogical Reconciliation of Full Return and Reward-to-Go

The policy gradient theorem describes the gradient of the expected discounted return with respect to an agent's policy parameters. However, many policy gradient methods omit the outer discount factor, yielding an update that need not equal the gradient of the discounted objective. Is the resulting update the gradient of another objective? This has been an open question for several years, and this lack of theoretical clarity has led to an abundance of misstatements in the literature. We answer this question for the resulting episode-summed, on-policy update by proving that it need not equal the gradient of any function. Further, we construct a counterexample in which exact expected updates drive the policy toward a deterministic limit that is globally pessimal with respect to both the discounted and undiscounted objectives, while the parameter diverges. We motivate this work by surveying the literature and showing that there remains a widespread misunderstanding regarding discounted policy gradient methods, with errors present even in highly-cited papers published at top conferences.

Policy gradient algorithms for language models optimize the same objective $J(θ) = \mathbb{E}*{τ\sim p*θ(τ)}[R(τ)]$, which has exactly two factors: the trajectory probability $p_θ(τ)$ and the reward $R(τ)$. Every method from REINFORCE to PPO to GRPO and their descendants modifies one or both factors to address a specific failure in the preceding formulation. Existing surveys organize these methods by domain or chronology, which obscures the rationale behind each design choice and the precise location of its intervention within the gradient estimator. This survey revisits the landscape of LLM policy optimization from $J(θ)$ on first principles and uses the trajectory side, induced by $p_θ(τ)$, and the reward side, induced by $R(τ)$, as the two axes along which methods are located. It covers the path from REINFORCE and PPO to GRPO, as well as post-GRPO variants, Agentic RL, and GRPO-OPD. The resulting framework is unified, diagnostic, and extensible: it analyzes methods from a shared objective, identifies which side each method modifies and why, and applies the same trajectory and reward axes across these settings. Across these settings, the framework also exposes compound failures that no single-side fix resolves and that therefore require joint design of the trajectory side and the reward side. The boundary cases and coupled failures identified by this map mark where existing solutions run out and provide a principled starting point for designing the next generation of LLM policy optimization algorithms.

Policy gradients for autoregressive sequence models differentiate each token's log-probability while holding the conditioning history fixed. This discards information about how earlier decisions shape later conditional distributions, creating a credit-assignment bottleneck when rewards are sparse. We introduce History-Reparameterized (HR) policy gradients, which replace the frozen prefix in the score function with a differentiable reparameterized or relaxed history, allowing gradients of downstream log-probabilities to propagate backward through the generated trajectory. The resulting history-pathwise term is generally biased when added directly, so we derive Optimal HR (OHR), a centered control-variate estimator with a closed-form coefficient that minimizes the trace of the gradient variance at the population level. The variance reduction is governed by temporal structure in the policy dynamics: random or weakly structured policies provide little benefit, while policies with learned sequential dependencies yield informative history-pathwise corrections. For discrete tokens, the choice of relaxation is crucial: embedding-level relaxation yields substantial variance reduction that grows with horizon, whereas straight-through Gumbel-Softmax yields essentially none in our diagnostics. We validate the method on a Gaussian linear Markov model, a sparse-reward T-maze with a recurrent policy, and an autoregressive Transformer model for small Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) instances.