Revisiting Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards from a Contrastive Perspective
Authors: Feng Zhang, Xinhong Ma, Ziqiang Dong, Xi Leng, Jianfei Zhao, Xin Sun, Yang Yang, Guanjun Jiang
Organizations: Beijing Institute of Technology · Qwen Business Unit of Alibaba · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · Zhongguancun Academy
Abstract
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.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a promising approach to improve the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). Among RLVR algorithms, Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) and its variants have demonstrated strong performance and high training efficiency. However, GRPO-style objectives exhibit two issues on high accuracy prompts including mastered prompts (rollout accuracy =1) and majority-correct prompts (rollout accuracy in (0.5,1)). For mastered prompts, group-relative advantages vanish, yielding no training signal and unconstrained policy drift that can cause forgetting. For majority-correct prompts, the induced query weight shrinks as accuracy increases, weakening consolidation from partial correctness to mastery. To alleviate this, we propose Mastery-Consolidated Policy Optimization (MCPO), which introduces (i) a hinge-KL regularizer applied exclusively to mastered prompts to bound harmful policy drift between successive gradient steps, and (ii) a weighting mechanism that prioritizes majority-correct prompts to better allocate optimization effort. Extensive experiments across three mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that MCPO consistently improves pass@1 performance. Counter-intuitively, rather than restricting exploration, MCPO boosts pass@k metrics, indicating that mastery consolidation further catalyzes solution diversity.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for eliciting long-chain reasoning in large language models. However, existing methods based on Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) rely on a binary outcome reward, which induces two structural failure modes: Zero-Advantage Collapse, in which all rollouts in a group share the same outcome and the gradient vanishes, and Hallucinated Certainty, in which the model becomes increasingly confident on incorrect rollouts late in training. We address both modes by densifying the reward with intrinsic signals computed entirely from the policy's own conditional probabilities, and propose ISPO (Intrinsic Signal Policy Optimization, which combines a sequence-level signal measuring how informative the thinking trajectory is for the final answer, with a token-level directional reward whose hallucinated-certainty hinge penalizes confidently-wrong predictions at critical decision tokens. Across three base models and five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, ISPO consistently outperforms competitive baselines, with the largest gains on the hardest benchmarks where zero-advantage collapse is most frequent, and training-dynamics diagnostics confirm that both failure modes are decreased.
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.