SRPO: Self-Reflective Policy Optimization for Long-Horizon Reasoning
Authors: Jialong Liu, Yuling Shi, Ning Yang, Xiaodong Gu, Zuchao Li
Organizations: School of artificial intelligence, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China · School of computer science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · Institute of automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Self-reflection is a powerful mechanism for credit assignment in human learning, converting sparse outcome feedback into actionable guidance. However, its potential for post-training Large Language Models (LLMs) remains underexplored. We propose Self-Reflective Policy Optimization (SRPO), a framework that internalizes this capability. SRPO enables LLMs to analyze their own completed trajectories, synthesize errors into concise "reflection patches," and use reflection-conditioned teacher scores on student on-policy rollouts as dense token-level training signals. This process effectively transforms sparse terminal supervision into dense, token-level learning signals without requiring external critics, separate reward models, or larger teacher models. We demonstrate that SRPO achieves state-of-the-art performance across mathematical reasoning and long-horizon agentic benchmarks with exceptional data efficiency. Using a Qwen3-8B base model, SRPO attains 73.3% on AIME'24 using only 8% (0.08x) of the training FLOPs required by scaled supervised fine-tuning, while significantly improving success rates on WebShop (64.7%), ALFWorld (76.8%), and SWE-Bench-Lite (31.2%). Code is available at https://github.com/Galleons2029/SRPO
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the SRPO Framework. The process consists of two stages using the same model πθ . Stage 1: Given a prompt x and a sparse outcome o from an initial attempt, the model generates a concise Reflection Patch ( p ). This patch is prepended to the prompt (Reset-with-Memory) to guide the model in generating a high-quality “Teacher” distribution πθ(⋅∣[p;x]) . Stage 2: The base model (Student), seeing only the original prompt x , generates on-policy rollouts. It is optimized to minimize the Reverse KL divergence between its output distribution and the Teacher’s distribution, effectively converting sparse outcomes into dense, token-level supervision.
Figure 2: Performance comparison on mathematical reasoning benchmarks. All methods start from the same SFT-400K checkpoint. SRPO achieves the best performance across all benchmarks with significantly fewer training FLOPs (0.08 × ). † Inference-time methods with 3 refinement iterations. Detailed numerical results are in Table 5 .
Figure 3: Performance on long-horizon agentic benchmarks. (a) Success rate comparison across WebShop, ALFWorld, and SWE-Bench-Lite. (b) Average episode steps showing execution efficiency. SRPO achieves the highest success rates while maintaining the shortest episode length. Detailed numerical results are in Table 6 .
Figure 4: Inference-time scaling on AIME’24. (a) Performance vs. number of refinement iterations for different methods. SRPO-trained models show better scaling with additional compute (+1.8%/iter vs +1.2%/iter for GRPO). (b) Performance vs. total inference FLOPs, demonstrating Pareto efficiency.
Figure 5: Comparison of full fine-tuning vs. LoRA adaptation for SRPO. (a) Performance on AIME’24 showing LoRA-128 achieves 97.8% of full fine-tuning accuracy. (b) GPU memory requirements demonstrating LoRA’s efficiency with 72–73% reduction. Detailed numerical results are in Table 7 .
Configuration
AIME’24
WebShop
SRPO (Full)
73.3
64.7
Stage 1: Reflection Design
w/o reflection (direct retry)
65.8
54.2
w/ verbose reflection ( > 10 points)
70.0
60.3
w/ outcome-only feedback
67.2
56.8
w/ external teacher reflection
71.5
62.4
Table 1: Ablation study on AIME’24 and WebShop. Each row removes or modifies one component from the full SRPO system.
Figure 6: Scaling behavior of SRPO. (a) Performance vs. model size shows consistent improvements across scales, with larger gains for smaller models (+7.8 for 1.5B vs +3.8 for 32B). (b) Performance vs. training compute demonstrates SRPO reaches 70% performance with ∼ 10 × fewer FLOPs than GRPO.
Model Size
SFT
GRPO
SRPO
Δ vs GRPO
Qwen3-1.5B
38.2
44.5
52.3
+7.8
Qwen3-8B
60.0
68.0
73.3
+5.3
Qwen3-32B
71.4
78.2
82.0
+3.8
Table 2: Scaling analysis across model sizes on AIME’24. SRPO shows consistent improvements across all scales, with the relative gain increasing for smaller models.
Figure 7: Analysis of reflection quality. (a) Distribution of reflection helpfulness scores rated by GPT-4: 67% of reflections receive scores ≥ 4 (useful), while only 8% receive scores ≤ 2 (unhelpful). (b) Strong correlation ( r=0.72 ) between reflection quality and improvement in rethinking rollout success rate.
Student
Teacher
AIME’24
Teacher FLOPs
Qwen3-8B
None (GRPO)
68.0
0
Qwen3-32B
70.0
4.0 ×
Qwen3-72B
72.5
9.0 ×
Self (SRPO)
73.3
1.0 ×
Qwen3-1.5B
Qwen3-8B
48.7
5.3 ×
Qwen3-32B
51.2
21.3 ×
Table 3: Comparison of self-distillation (SRPO) vs. distillation from larger teachers. Self-distillation achieves competitive performance without requiring access to larger models.
Method
Math (Before)
Code (After)
Math (After)
Retention
SFT
60.0
28.4
48.2
80.3%
GRPO
68.0
26.7
59.3
87.2%
SRPO
73.3
31.2
69.8
95.2%
Table 4: Continual learning evaluation. Models are first trained on math (AIME’24) then adapted to code (SWE-Lite). SRPO better preserves original capabilities while acquiring new skills.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
AIME’24
MATH-500
GSM8K
DeepScaleR
Train FLOPs
SFT-400K (init)
45.0 ± 1.9
52.4 ± 1.0
69.2 ± 0.6
28.3 ± 1.4
–
PPO
55.3 ± 2.1
65.8 ± 1.0
80.7 ± 0.5
41.2 ± 1.3
1.2×
GRPO
68.0 ± 1.7
72.2 ± 0.8
88.4 ± 0.4
53.8 ± 1.1
1.0×
OPD (Qwen3-32B teacher)
70.0 ± 1.5
78.6 ± 0.6
92.1 ± 0.3
55.4 ± 1.0
0.11×
OPD (Qwen3-72B teacher)
72.5 ± 1.4
80.1 ± 0.5
93.0 ± 0.3
55.8 ± 1.0
0.23×
GRPO + prompt reflection
69.5 ± 1.6
73.4 ± 0.8
89.0 ± 0.4
54.1 ± 1.1
1.0×
Appendix
Table 5: Performance comparison on mathematical reasoning benchmarks. All methods start from the same SFT-400K checkpoint and are trained with identical prompt template, sampling temperature, max tokens, batch size, rollouts per prompt, and learning schedule (Appendix B.8 ); the only variable is the teacher distribution. We report mean over 5 independent seeds; the ± values are paired-bootstrap standard deviations over 10 000 resamples. “Train FLOPs” is the full Stage 1+Stage 2 cost (Appendix B.4 ), normalized to GRPO. † Inference-time methods with 3 refinement iterations.
Method
WebShop
ALFWorld
SWE-Lite
LiveCodeBench
Avg. Steps
Qwen3-8B (base)
42.3 ± 1.4
51.2 ± 1.7
18.7 ± 1.3
22.4 ± 1.2
12.4
SFT (expert traj.)
56.8 ± 1.2
68.4 ± 1.4
24.3 ± 1.2
26.1 ± 1.1
10.8
GRPO
51.2 ± 1.1
62.7 ± 1.5
22.1 ± 1.2
28.4 ± 1.0
11.6
PPO
49.8 ± 1.3
60.3 ± 1.7
21.5 ± 1.3
27.0 ± 1.1
11.9
OPD (Qwen3-32B teacher)
57.3 ± 0.9
69.2 ± 1.3
26.4 ± 1.1
31.2 ± 0.9
11.0
OPD (Qwen3-72B teacher)
61.8 ± 0.9
72.4 ± 1.2
28.6 ± 1.0
32.4 ± 0.9
10.7
Appendix
Table 6: Performance on long-horizon agentic and code-reasoning benchmarks. Success rate / pass@1 (%) is reported. LiveCodeBench ( Jain et al., 2024 ) is evaluated on a contamination-free Aug 2025 – Jan 2026 slice (240 problems). Mean over 5 seeds; ± are paired-bootstrap standard deviations.
Model
Method
AIME’24
MATH-500
Params
Memory
Qwen3-8B
Full FT
73.3
81.2
8.0B
64GB
LoRA-64
70.0
79.4
52M
18GB
LoRA-128
71.7
80.1
104M
22GB
Qwen3-32B
Full FT
82.0
87.3
32B
256GB
LoRA-64
78.3
85.1
210M
68GB
LoRA-128
79.7
86.0
420M
78GB
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of full fine-tuning vs. LoRA adaptation for SRPO. LoRA shows competitive performance with significantly reduced memory footprint, though full fine-tuning maintains an advantage on the most challenging benchmarks.
Component
FLOPs ( ×1018 )
% of SRPO total
Stage 1 (one-time preprocessing)
Initial rollout generation
1.2
22.2%
Reflection patch generation
0.6
11.1%
Rethinking rollout (quality validation)
1.2
22.2%
Stage 2 (500 iterations)
Student on-policy rollout
1.2
22.2%
Appendix
Table 8: Complete FLOPs breakdown for SRPO (Qwen3-8B, AIME’24 training). Stage 1 is one-time, embarrassingly parallel preprocessing that can be cached across epochs; only Stage 2 is repeated each training run. The rethinking rollout y~ is reported for full transparency but is not consumed as a training target in Stage 2, which uses only teacher-forced scoring of student tokens (see Eq. 6 in the main paper). Removing this row would cut Stage 1 cost by 22.2% without altering the Stage 2 objective.
Benchmark
Instances
8-gram overlaps
Overlap rate
AIME’24
30
0
0.0%
MATH-500
500
3
0.6% (common phrases)
GSM8K
1 319
0
0.0%
DeepScaleR
1 200
0
0.0%
GPQA Diamond
448
0
0.0%
LogiQA 2.0
1 572
0
0.0%
Appendix
Table 9: Data contamination audit. 8-gram overlap between OpenThoughts-3 training data and each evaluation benchmark. Numbers in parentheses for MATH-500 indicate the 3 flagged 8-grams, which on manual inspection were common mathematical phrases (e.g. “find the value of x such that”), not problem-level contamination.
Variable
SRPO & OPD
Aligned?
Prompt template
system + task
✓
Sampling temperature
0.7
✓
Top- p
0.95
✓
Max tokens
4 096
✓
Rollouts per prompt
4 (best-of-4)
✓
Batch size
256
✓
Appendix
Table 10: Experimental controls for the SRPO vs. external-teacher OPD comparison. Every variable other than the teacher distribution is held identical across runs.
Method
Unique Paths / Problem
Novel Correct (%)
OPD (Qwen3-72B teacher)
2.3
8.4
SRPO (self-reflection)
4.1
15.7
Appendix
Table 11: Solution-diversity probe on the 30 AIME’24 problems (10 samples per problem). The reflection-conditioned self-teacher expands the student’s reasoning-path entropy rather than contracting it, in contrast to a larger external teacher.
Figure 8: Reflection semantics control experiment. (a) Performance comparison across reflection conditions: mismatched reflections (from unrelated problems) and template-only reflections yield performance comparable to no reflection, while matched SRPO shows significant gains. (b) Token length distributions are matched across conditions, isolating the effect of semantic content.
Condition
AIME’24
WebShop
Avg. Tokens
Δ vs Full
SRPO (Full, Matched)
73.3 ± 0.8
64.7 ± 1.5
92.4
–
Semantic Disruption
Shuffled Words
66.2 ± 1.2
55.4 ± 1.9
92.4
-7.1 / -9.3
Shuffled Sentences
66.8 ± 1.1
56.1 ± 1.7
92.4
-6.5 / -8.6
Mismatched Reflection
66.5 ± 1.0
55.8 ± 1.8
91.8
-6.8 / -8.9
Content Reduction
Appendix
Table 12: Comprehensive reflection semantics ablation results. Performance drops sharply when reflections lack task-specific semantic content, regardless of format or token count preservation.
Figure 9: Extended reflection semantics analysis. (a) Comprehensive ablation on AIME’24 showing that all semantic disruption conditions converge to baseline performance. (b) WebShop results confirm the pattern generalizes to agentic tasks. (c) Training dynamics reveal that semantic-aligned reflections enable faster convergence. (d) Content analysis shows mismatched reflections lack task-relevant information despite identical format.
Method
Before Adaptation
After Code Adaptation
Math
Code
Math (Retention)
SFT
60.0
28.4
48.2 (80.3%)
GRPO
68.0
26.7
59.3 (87.2%)
SRPO
73.3
31.2
69.8 (95.2%)
Appendix
Table 13: Continual learning evaluation. Models are first trained on math (AIME’24) then adapted to code (SWE-Lite). SRPO better preserves original capabilities while acquiring new skills.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a standard paradigm for improving large language models (LLMs) on various tasks, yet its sparse outcome rewards lack token-level credit assignment for intermediate steps. To address this, on-policy self-distillation (OPSD) leverages a self-teacher with privileged context to provide additional dense learning signals. However, because the self-teacher is often overconfident and imposes excessive penalties on long reasoning trajectories, OPSD frequently struggles in practice. To mitigate this, we propose self-instructing policy optimization (SIPO) with a contrastive self-teacher to provide dense credit. At each iteration, SIPO samples multiple rollouts per prompt from the current policy, scores them with environment rewards, and constructs two teacher contexts for each rollout by pairing the reference answer with mistakes made within the group. The model then re-evaluates its own responses under both contexts, using the difference between the two teacher log-probabilities as token-level feedback, so that biases shared by both contexts are expected to largely cancel. The resulting objective yields a token-level advantage for every rollout: the reward still sets the main direction of each update while the self-teacher redistributes credit across tokens. Even in groups where every rollout fails and group-relative advantages vanish, SIPO still provides a learning signal. By preserving direct optimization of the task reward while providing dense, token-level feedback, this approach bridges reinforcement learning and on-policy self-distillation. Extensive experiments across multiple reasoning and code-generation benchmarks demonstrate that SIPO outperforms both RLVR and OPSD baselines without an external teacher or additional generation.
Zhenrui Yue, Huimin Zeng, Yueqi Wang +8
University of Illinois · UC San Diego · Rochester Institute of Technology +2
Training large language models (LLMs) as autonomous agents via reinforcement learning (RL) has enabled frontier models to achieve superhuman performance in long-horizon tasks. However, existing RL algorithms operate at the trajectory level, performing policy optimization only after collecting complete episode rollouts. This coarse-grained approach faces fundamental challenges in multi-turn agent settings where rewards are sparse, delayed, and credit assignment across individual steps is critical. In this work, we propose State-Score-Supervised Policy Optimization (3SPO), a novel RL algorithm that performs post-step policy optimization with dynamic state score supervision. At each step, 3SPO computes the state score based on historical success rates, supervising step-wise credit assignment, adaptive rollout and post-step policy optimization without requiring value function estimation or additional auxiliary models. Theoretically, under a per-state bandit abstraction, we show that the proposed score-supervised allocation mechanism achieves logarithmic allocation regret and provide sample-complexity guarantees for action identification, score distinguishability, and filtering stability. Experiments on ALFWorld and WebShop with Qwen2.5-1.5B/7B-Instruct show that 3SPO consistently outperforms GRPO by +22.6% on ALFWorld and +15.6 points on WebShop, while using comparable resources to achieve 2.4× more state exploration and 1.8× faster convergence. Code is available at https://github.com/genalyu/3SPO.
Yu Han, Kailing Li, Yang Jiao +4
School of Computer Science and Technology, East China Normal University · Fudan University · KAUST +1
The alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) for complex reasoning heavily relies on Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR). However, standard algorithms like GRPO apply sequence-level rewards uniformly to all tokens, creating a severe credit-assignment bottleneck. While on-policy self-distillation attempts to resolve this by conditioning a self-teacher on privileged contexts, direct exposure to raw oracle solutions often induces over-conditioned teacher distributions, implicit answer leakage, and late-stage training collapse. To overcome these limitations, we propose Asymmetric Meta-Reflective Self-Distillation (AMR-SD). Instead of conditioning directly on raw reference traces, AMR-SD inserts a reflection bottleneck: it compresses diagnostic signals -- from verifier outcomes, peer rollouts, or reference feedback -- into concise, self-generated Socratic hints and critiques. Furthermore, we introduce Causal Information Gain (CIG) with an asymmetric, ReLU-gated threshold to translate these reflections into sparse, highly precise token-level advantage modulations. Combined with temporal annealing, this mechanism preserves the base environmental reward while filtering out distributional noise. Experiments across scientific, mathematical, and tool-use benchmarks demonstrate that AMR-SD significantly outperforms existing baselines, achieving robust long-horizon stability and successfully preventing late-stage collapse.
Zhenlin Wei, Pu Jian, Yingzhuo Deng +6
Meituan Beijing, China · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences