Post-training has become central to improving reasoning and alignment in large language models, where critic-free models enable scalable learning from model-generated outputs but lack principled mechanisms to distinguish informative from noisy signals. Recent approaches leverage response-level measures as uncertainty signals to regulate group-based optimization methods such as GRPO. Yet their empirical success remains unstable and unclear in how they influence optimization dynamics. In this paper, we provide, to our knowledge, the first principled formulation that interprets uncertainty signals as mechanisms for characterizing and regulating gradient variance and learning signal quality. Based on both empirical and theoretical analysis, we identify two critical gaps of current entropy-based estimators: The anisotropic gap and The calibration gap. Motivated by this analysis, we propose Geometric-aware Calibrated Policy Optimization (GCPO), a novel framework integrating geometry-aware measures to capture semantic disagreement with reward-based calibration to align uncertainty with learning signal strength. Experiments on multiple benchmarks show that our approach more faithfully tracks gradient variability and consistently improves post-training performance. Our results highlight the importance of designing uncertainty signals that are aligned with optimization dynamics, offering a principled perspective for robust post-training.
On-policy rollout methods such as GRPO are central to post-training of large language models, yet they frequently suffer from training instabilities, cross-task capability degradation, and response-length inflation. Although prior work has characterized the subspace geometry of aggregate updates, the stepwise variation of this geometry and its relationship to model performance remain unclear. We introduce Principal-Subspace Overlap, a dimension-corrected measure of individual rollout updates relative to the dominant singular subspaces of pretrained weights. Despite low average overlap, transient spikes often precede performance degradation. To address this, we propose GCPO (Geometrically Constrained Policy Optimization), which applies hard bilateral orthogonal projections to constrain updates to the complementary subspaces, preventing such excursions by construction. Across mathematical reasoning, code generation, and tool-use tasks on Qwen3-8B and GLM4-9B, GCPO consistently outperforms GRPO and recent variants, including DAPO and GSPO, improving over the base models and the strongest baseline by up to 27.69 and 2.37 points, respectively. Furthermore, GCPO preserves general capabilities, eliminates response-length inflation, and stabilizes policy entropy. Our findings provide a new diagnostic lens and a principled design perspective for stable reinforcement learning post-training.
Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) has emerged as a promising approach for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models. However, it struggles to effectively balance the tradeoff between exploration and exploitation during training, often resulting in suboptimal performance. Motivated by the theoretical insight that changes in entropy are governed by the covariance between token probabilities and their corresponding advantages, we propose a hyperparameter-free, covariance-weighted optimization method that dynamically down-weights extreme token-level updates via a Gaussian kernel. This approach automatically reduces the instability caused by exploration-exploitation trade-off while preserving informative learning signals. Extensive empirical evaluations show that our approach improves downstream performance across reasoning benchmarks compared with GRPO, and effectively stablizes entropy as training progresses.
Reinforcement learning (RL) for LLM post-training faces a fundamental design choice: whether to use a learned critic as a baseline for policy optimization. Classical theory favors critic-based methods such as PPO for variance reduction, yet critic-free alternatives like GRPO have gained widespread adoption due to their simplicity and competitive performance. We show that in sparse-reward settings, a learned critic can inject estimation noise that exceeds the state signal it captures, increasing rather than reducing advantage variance. By casting baseline selection as a Kalman filtering problem, we unify PPO and GRPO as two extremes of the Kalman gain and prove that explained variance (EV), computable from a single training batch, identifies the exact boundary: positive EV indicates the critic reduces variance, while zero or negative EV signals that it inflates variance. Building on this insight, we propose Explained Variance Policy Optimization (EVPO), which monitors batch-level EV at each training step and adaptively switches between critic-based and batch-mean advantage estimation, provably achieving no greater variance than the better of the two at every step. Across four tasks spanning classical control, agentic interaction, and mathematical reasoning, EVPO consistently outperforms both PPO and GRPO regardless of which fixed baseline is stronger on a given task. Further analysis confirms that the adaptive gating tracks critic maturation over training and that the theoretically derived zero threshold is empirically optimal.