The Mirage of Optimizing Training Policies: Monotonic Inference Policies as the Real Objective for LLM Reinforcement Learning

Modern LLM RL systems separate rollout generation from policy optimization. These two stages are expected to produce token probabilities that match exactly. However, implementation differences can make them assign different values to the same sequence under the same model weights, inducing Training-Inference Mismatch (TIM). TIM is difficult to inspect because it is entangled with off-policy drift and common stabilization mechanisms. In this work, we isolate TIM in a zero-mismatch diagnostic setting (VeXact), and show that small token-level numerical disagreements can independently cause training collapse. We further show that TIM changes the effective optimization problem, and identify a set of remedies that could mitigate TIM. Our results suggest that TIM is not benign numerical noise, but a systems-level perturbation that should be treated as a first-order factor in analyzing LLM RL stability.

Existing reinforcement learning methods for LLM reasoning implicitly assume that the policy generating training trajectories should coincide with the one producing inference responses. We argue that this is a misleading inductive bias: the optimization-optimal trajectory distribution favors informative gradients, whereas the inference-optimal response distribution emphasizes accuracy and consistency. Forcing both into a single policy entangles their gradients and suppresses exploration. We propose R$^2$PO (Residual Rollout Policy Optimization), which attaches a lightweight Residual Rollout-Head atop the policy to decouple training trajectories from inference responses, diversifying rollouts during training while keeping inference generation intact. Experiments show that R$^2$PO consistently outperforms baselines, with average accuracy gains of 3.4% on MATH-500 and 1.3% on APPS, alongside more diverse rollouts and reduced length bias. Our code is available at https://github.com/RRPO-ARR/Code.

Reinforcement learning has become a central post-training paradigm for improving LLM and agent capabilities. Yet existing RL post-training methods share a common blind spot: they construct local learning signals from sampled trajectories, rewards, or feedback-conditioned targets, then update the policy without explicitly verifying whether the resulting policy outperforms its predecessor. Optimizing these local signals does not necessarily produce a better policy, while finite sampling, generation stochasticity and feedback noise can further widen this gap. We argue that the missing ingredient is policy improvement feedback: the ability to measure progress across policy iterations. We introduce Policy Improvement Reinforcement Learning (PIRL), which formulates inter-iteration performance gain as an explicit objective structurally aligned with final task performance. Building on PIRL, we propose Policy Improvement Policy Optimization (PIPO), a plug-in closed-loop framework that verifies the previous update against a sliding-window historical performance anchor. PIPO uses this improvement feedback to modulate the local learning signal of the base policy optimization algorithm, reinforcing updates associated with measured progress and suppressing those associated with performance drops. We provide theoretical evidence that PIPO locally aligns policy updates with the PIRL improvement objective. Experiments on mathematical reasoning, code, tool-use, and self-distillation settings show that PIPO yields consistent gains across PPO, group-relative, and self-distillation policy optimization families.