Selective Off-Policy Reference Tuning with Plan Guidance
Authors: Duc Anh Le, Tien-Phat Nguyen, Thien Huu Nguyen, Linh Ngo Van, Trung Le
Organizations: Independent Author · Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam · University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA · Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards helps reasoning, but GRPO-style methods stall on hard prompts where all sampled rollouts fail. SORT adds a repair update for those failures without changing rollout generation: it derives a plan from the reference solution, compares token probabilities with and without that plan, and gives higher weight to tokens that become more predictable under plan conditioning. This turns all-wrong prompts into selective, structure-aware learning signals instead of uniform imitation. Across three backbones and eight reasoning benchmarks, SORT improves over GRPO and guidance baselines, with largest gains on weaker models.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) improves reasoning in large language models. Yet, typical RLVR approaches fail on difficult problems: when a model cannot generate any correct solutions, it receives \textit{zero} learning signal. Providing privileged guidance during training, such as solution prefixes, can help overcome this learning cliff by steering the model towards {correct solutions with non-zero reward}. {We call these rollouts \textit{off-context}: they are generated from a training prompt that contains privileged guidance, while the target objective is defined by the original prompt without that guidance.} {We introduce} Off-Context GRPO (OC-GRPO), a minimally modified variant of GRPO that uses guided rollouts but applies an importance-corrected objective to steer the update back toward the original unguided objective, avoiding the mismatch that destabilizes uncorrected guided training. Empirically, our algorithm achieves a 3.9% absolute improvement (13.8% relative gain) over vanilla GRPO on average across standard mathematical reasoning benchmarks with negligible additional cost.
Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) has shown strong effectiveness in reinforcement learning from verifiable feedback, where sampled rollouts can be compared within a group using task-provided correctness signals. However, extending group-relative optimization beyond verifiable settings is challenging because success in many tasks is not captured by a single correctness criterion. We propose \textbf{Reference-Relative Policy Optimization (RRPO)}, which generalizes GRPO by replacing direct correctness-based advantage construction with reference-relative contrastive comparisons. RRPO first uses \emph{stratified conditional rollouts} to construct positive and negative anchor sets, and then trains a metric projection head with a set-contrastive objective to compare candidate rollouts against these anchors. The resulting alignment scores directly define contrastive advantages: during policy optimization, the projection head is frozen, and the scores are centered within each rollout group in a standard group-relative objective. We evaluate RRPO using anchor-based contrastive advantages throughout policy optimization, without relying on task ground-truth verifiers. Across verifiable reasoning, open-ended generation, and post-SFT settings, RRPO remains competitive with verifier-based optimization, improves over weakly supervised baselines, and provides additional gains after supervised fine-tuning.
Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is an effective recipe for training reasoning models with verifier-based outcome rewards, but its supervision is sparse: when all sampled trajectories for a prompt receive the same verifier reward, the group-relative advantage collapses to zero and learning stalls. Outcome-only rewards also provide no step-level credit assignment, limiting exploration and making it harder to learn robust reasoning. We present VeriGate (Verifier-Gated Step-Level GRPO), a verifier-gated extension of GRPO that addresses these limitations with three design choices. First, VeriGate keeps the verifier in charge whenever verifier rewards induce a meaningful preference among sampled trajectories, and uses process supervision only when verifier rewards are degenerate. Second, instead of collapsing Process Reward Model (PRM) step scores into a single trajectory reward, VeriGate converts them into future-cumulated rewards to assign continuation-aware credit. Third, VeriGate transforms these rewards into group-normalized token-level advantages, restoring informative gradients and fine-grained credit assignment while remaining less susceptible to reward hacking than methods that optimize aggregated PRM scores. Empirically, training on MATH with 1.5B and 7B Qwen2.5-Instruct models and evaluating on six reasoning benchmarks, VeriGate improves average accuracy by about 20% and 12% for 1.5B and 7B models respectively, substantially reduces zero-gradient failures, decreases reward-hacking behavior, and improves reasoning quality relative to outcome-only GRPO and PRM-as-outcome baselines.