Rethinking the Comparison Unit in Sequence-Level Reinforcement Learning: An Equal-Length Paired Training Framework from Loss Correction to Sample Construction
This paper investigates the length problem in sequence-level relative reinforcement learning. We observe that, although existing methods partially alleviate length-related phenomena, a more fundamental issue remains insufficiently characterized: the comparison units used during training lack inherent comparability. Building on this observation, we propose a new perspective: the length problem should not be viewed merely as a loss-scaling or normalization bias, but rather as a \emph{comparison unit construction} problem. We further establish a sample-construction-based training framework that, instead of applying post-hoc corrections to unequal-length responses, proactively constructs equal-length, alignable, and comparable training segments during generation. Within this framework, we propose EqLen, a concrete method applicable to group-relative comparison algorithms such as GRPO, GSPO, and RLOO. Through dual-track synchronous generation, prefix inheritance, and segment masking, EqLen efficiently collects effective equal-length training segments and enables stable
Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is the dominant reinforcement learning algorithm for training reasoning capabilities in large language models, notably adopted by DeepSeek-R1. The recent improvement Dr. GRPO (COLM 2025) identifies the response-level length bias caused by per-trajectory length normalization in GRPO and proposes removing this normalization, claiming the resulting optimizer is "unbiased." We show that this claim is incomplete. Specifically, we establish an impossibility theorem: under the standard outcome reward + GRPO setting, no length-based weighting scheme can simultaneously achieve the following two properties. (P1) Gradient unbiasedness: the gradient estimator is an unbiased estimate of the true policy gradient. (P2) Length invariance: each trajectory's effective contribution to the gradient is independent of its token length. GRPO approximately satisfies P2 but violates P1; Dr. GRPO satisfies P1 but violates P2. We characterize the complete tradeoff spectrum via the parametric family f_alpha(L) = L^{alpha - 1}, where alpha = 0 recovers GRPO, alpha = 1 recovers Dr. GRPO, and provide quantitative analysis showing that Dr. GRPO's length bias can cause longer trajectories to dominate gradient updates by a factor proportional to the length ratio. Our results reveal that neither algorithm is universally "done right"; they occupy opposite ends of a fundamental and unavoidable tradeoff.
Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is one of the most widely adopted RLVR algorithms for post-training large language models on reasoning tasks. We first show that GRPO admits an equivalent discriminative reformulation, in which policy optimization maximizes the expected score gap between verified positive and negative rollouts. This reformulation reveals two objective-level limitations: likelihood-misaligned surrogate scores, in which clipped ratio-based scores are optimized rather than the sequence likelihoods that govern generation, and score-insensitive credit assignment, in which rollout-level credit does not reflect the current score gaps between positive and negative rollouts. To address these limitations, we propose ConSPO, a Contrastive Sequence-level Policy Optimization method that uses length-normalized sequence log-probabilities as rollout scores and contrasts verified positive rollouts against negative distractors within the same group. ConSPO optimizes a group-wise InfoNCE-style objective to adaptively strengthen updates for poorly separated positives and high-scoring negatives, together with a curriculum-scheduled margin that preserves separation pressure as training progresses. Experiments across diverse settings show that ConSPO outperforms strong baselines on challenging reasoning benchmarks. Code will be released upon paper acceptance.
Current paradigms for training language models via reinforcement learning rely heavily on sparse outcome rewards. However, as we pursue tasks that require longer and more complicated trajectories, such strategies result in slow learning. Prior work has attempted to address this problem by rewarding partial progress; however, naive formulations are often biased and converge to suboptimal policies. We show that a simple and unbiased dense reward formulation, which we term progressive point matching, scales exponentially more efficiently to long-horizon tasks by rewarding partial progress on a segment level, both theoretically and empirically via synthetic environments. We then show how progressive point matching can be practically instantiated using a single reference trajectory per task. On extremely hard math reasoning problems, sparse outcome rewards cannot make any progress, whereas segment-level rewards enable improvements at larger test-time token budgets when measured by success rate or pass@k.