Method Mathematical Reasoning Knowledge-Intensive Search AIME24 AIME25 MATH500 GSM8K MATH Math Avg. WebWalker HotpotQA 2Wiki MuSiQue Bamboogle Search Avg. Backbone: Qwen3-1.7B Training-Free Method Base 13.3 16.7 82.2 90.8 86.7 57.9 5.0 22.0 25.0 9.5 34.0 19.1 TIR Prompting 16.7 23.3 81.4 88.4 85.1 59.0 14.5 36.0 41.0 16.0 48.0 31.1 [3pt/3pt] Supervised and Distillation Methods SFT 16.7 23.3 82.8 91.0 87.6 60.3 16.5 48.0 58.0 22.5 58.0 40.6 OPD 20.0 26.7 84.4 92.0 88.7 62.4 18.5 52.0 66.5 25.0 60.5 44.5 [3pt/3pt] Classic RL Method GRPO 16.7 30.0 83.6 91.3 89.0 62.1 18.0 53.5 68.5 26.5 62.0 45.7 REINFORCE++ 20.0 26.7 83.2 91.9 88.3 62.0 18.5 51.0 65.5 24.0 61.0 44.0 DAPO 13.3 26.7 84.8 91.5 88.8 61.0 17.5 52.0 65.0 25.0 60.5 44.0 GSPO 20.0 26.7 84.6 91.0 88.7 62.2 18.5 54.0 68.0 26.0 63.0 45.9 EAPO 23.3 30.0 85.6 91.8 90.0 64.1 20.5 55.0 69.5 32.0 65.0 48.4 OC-GRPO 20.0 33.3 85.2 92.4 89.5 64.1 19.5 54.5 69.0 27.0 64.0 46.8 [3pt/3pt] Agentic RL Method GIGPO 23.3 26.7 84.2 92.4 89.1 63.1 Δ b a s e 63.1_{\Delta_{\mathrm{base}}} 63. 1 Δ base 23.5 58.0 73.0 29.5 67.0 50.2 Δ b a s e 50.2_{\Delta_{\mathrm{base}}} 50. 2 Δ base Tree-GRPO 23.3 30.0 85.0 92.0 88.8 63.8_{{\color[rgb]{0,0.88,0}+1.1\%}} 24.0 58.5 73.5 30.0 68.0 50.8_{{\color[rgb]{0,0.88,0}+1.2\%}} ARPO 26.7 30.0 85.0 91.7 88.3 \underline{64.3}_{{\color[rgb]{0,0.88,0}+1.9\%}} 24.5 59.0 74.0 30.5 69.0 \underline{51.4}_{{\color[rgb]{0,0.88,0}+2.4\%}} CBPO 26.7 33.3 86.4 93.2 90.4 \mathbf{66.0}_{{\color[rgb]{0,0.88,0}\mathbf{+4.6\%}}} 26.0 61.0 75.5 31.5 72.0 \mathbf{53.2}_{{\color[rgb]{0,0.88,0}\mathbf{+6.0\%}}} Backbone: Qwen3-4B Training-Free Method Base 13.3 20.0 84.6 90.0 89.8 59.5 7.0 27.0 31.0 12.0 40.0 23.4 TIR Prompting 16.7 26.7 85.1 92.7 89.3 62.1 17.5 41.5 47.0 19.5 53.5 35.8 [3pt/3pt] Supervised and Distillation Methods SFT 16.7 26.7 85.7 93.2 90.5 62.6 20.0 52.0 63.0 25.5 63.0 44.7 OPD 23.3 33.3 86.5 94.1 89.6 65.4 21.5 56.0 71.5 28.0 65.5 48.5 [3pt/3pt] Classic RL Method GRPO 16.7 40.0 86.0 93.8 91.3 65.6 21.5 57.5 73.0 29.5 66.5 49.6 REINFORCE++ 26.7 33.3 85.8 94.2 91.4 66.3 22.0 55.0 70.0 27.0 65.5 47.9 DAPO 13.3 30.0 87.8 93.5 91.5 63.2 21.0 56.0 69.0 28.0 65.0 47.8 GSPO 20.0 33.3 87.1 93.4 91.2 65.0 21.5 57.0 72.0 29.0 66.0 49.1 EAPO 23.3 36.7 87.2 94.4 91.8 66.7 24.0 59.5 74.5 35.0 69.0 52.4 OC-GRPO 23.3 33.3 87.0 94.2 90.6 65.7 22.5 58.5 73.5 29.5 67.5 50.3 [3pt/3pt] Agentic RL Method GIGPO 26.7 33.3 86.7 94.6 91.0 66.5 Δ b a s e 66.5_{\Delta_{\mathrm{base}}} 66. 5 Δ base 27.0 62.0 77.0 32.5 73.0 54.3 Δ b a s e 54.3_{\Delta_{\mathrm{base}}} 54. 3 Δ base Tree-GRPO 26.7 33.3 87.5 94.0 91.9 66.7_{{\color[rgb]{0,0.88,0}+0.3\%}} 28.0 62.5 77.5 33.0 74.0 55.0_{{\color[rgb]{0,0.88,0}+1.3\%}} ARPO 30.0 33.3 87.4 94.1 90.7 \underline{67.1}_{{\color[rgb]{0,0.88,0}+0.9\%}} 29.0 63.0 78.0 33.5 75.0 \underline{55.7}_{{\color[rgb]{0,0.88,0}+2.6\%}} CBPO 30.0 36.7 89.5 96.3 94.0 \mathbf{69.3}_{{\color[rgb]{0,0.88,0}\mathbf{+4.2\%}}} 31.0 65.5 80.0 34.5 76.5 \mathbf{57.5}_{{\color[rgb]{0,0.88,0}\mathbf{+5.9\%}}} Evaluation controls. All methods use the same system prompt, tool interfaces, decoding settings, and answer-extraction procedure. Search calls return the top ten snippets and share an evaluation cache, preventing method-specific retrieval variation from confounding policy comparisons. Mathematical answers are checked with the same symbolic-equivalence verifier. Pass@3/5 uses five independent samples for every method and problem. AIME 2024 and AIME 2025 each contain 30 problems, so one additional correct answer changes accuracy by 3.3 percentage points. Accordingly, the analysis emphasizes cross-task averages, both model scales, and component ablations rather than small AIME differences in isolation.
Training setup. The experiments use Qwen3-1.7B and Qwen3-4B backbones ( Yang and others, 2025 ) . Training data are drawn from Tool-Star ( Dong and others, 2025b ) . Mathematical experiments use 5,000 mathematical samples, whereas search experiments use search and dual-tool trajectories from 10,000 open-domain RL samples. All reward-based methods share the SFT initialization, training data, update count, outcome rewards, tool environment, and 16 rollout slots. OPD checkpoints follow the same benchmark and decoding protocol during evaluation. CBPO allocates six slots to initial trajectories and ten to a second branching stage. Independent complete trajectories fill any unused branch slots. Candidate scanning uses w = 20 w=20 w = 20 , K = 10 K=10 K = 10 , d min = 64 d_{\min}=64 d m i n = 64 , and J max = 3 J_{\max}=3 J m a x = 3 . Allocation uses α = 0.2 \alpha=0.2 α = 0.2 , γ = 2.0 \gamma=2.0 γ = 2.0 , κ = 0.25 \kappa=0.25 κ = 0.25 , ρ p a t h = ρ n o d e = 0.2 \rho_{\mathrm{path}}=\rho_{\mathrm{node}}=0.2 ρ path = ρ node = 0.2 , B n o d e = 3 B_{\mathrm{node}}=3 B node = 3 , and B p a t h = 4 B_{\mathrm{path}}=4 B path = 4 . Credit modulation uses η = 0.2 \eta=0.2 η = 0.2 , ϕ = 2.0 \phi=2.0 ϕ = 2.0 , and a CBV standard-deviation threshold of 10 − 6 10^{-6} 1 0 − 6 . Baselines. At both model scales, the comparison includes Base, TIR prompting ( Lin and Xu, 2025 ) , SFT, and on-policy distillation (OPD) ( Li and others, 2026 ) . Policy-optimization baselines are GRPO ( Shao and others, 2024 ) , REINFORCE++ ( Hu and others, 2025 ) , DAPO ( Yu and others, 2025 ) , GSPO ( Zheng et al., 2025 ) , EAPO ( He et al., 2026 ) , and OC-GRPO ( Agrawal et al., 2026 ) . Agentic and branch-based baselines are GIGPO ( Feng et al., 2025 ) , Tree-GRPO ( Ji et al., 2026 ) , and ARPO ( Dong and others, 2025a ) .
Figure 4. Pass@K comparison between ARPO and CBPO. The top and bottom rows show Qwen3-1.7B and Qwen3-4B. Pass@3/5 is computed from five samples per problem. Each benchmark uses an independent vertical axis; consequently, bar heights should not be compared across benchmarks. Grouped bar charts comparing ARPO and CBPO at Pass@1, Pass@3, and Pass@5 on five mathematical reasoning benchmarks and two model scales. 5.2. Main Results
The primary comparison evaluates whether the complete CBPO pipeline improves closed-form reasoning and open-world retrieval under matched rollout budgets. Table 5.1 reports mathematical macro-average Pass@1 scores of 66.0% and 69.3% with the 1.7B and 4B backbones. These scores exceed those of ARPO, the strongest size-matched baseline by macro average, by 1.7 and 2.2 percentage points. The corresponding search averages are 53.2 and 57.5, exceeding ARPO by 1.8 points at both scales. Relative to OPD, CBPO gains 3.6 and 3.9 points on the mathematical average and 8.7 and 9.0 points on the search average. CBPO ranks first or ties for first on all five mathematical benchmarks at 1.7B and on four of five at 4B. At 4B, GRPO leads AIME 2025 by one problem. CBPO also leads four of five search benchmarks at each scale, trailing EAPO on MuSiQue by 0.5 points. This consistency across domains and model scales supports the overall pipeline. The following analyses examine the component-specific hypotheses.
Pass@K extension. Figure 4 evaluates whether the gain persists when several candidate answers are available. From five independent samples per problem, Qwen3-1.7B with CBPO reaches macro-average Pass@1, Pass@3, and Pass@5 scores of 66.0%, 74.6%, and 77.9%. The corresponding Qwen3-4B scores are 69.3%, 76.9%, and 80.2%. CBPO exceeds ARPO at each reported value, indicating that its advantage is not confined to single-sample decoding.
Training dynamics and branch selection. Figure 5 compares reward, tool use, and selected branch positions. CBPO attains a higher final mean reward than GIGPO and ARPO while averaging fewer tool calls. The performance gain therefore cannot be attributed to more frequent tool invocation. The qualitative examples show that decay can reorder high-entropy candidates before allocation, consistent with separating candidate discovery from budget control.
5.3. Full-Response Candidate Analysis
Three Qwen3-1.7B trajectories from the MATH test set were inspected to locate decisions associated with their outcomes. In one successful trajectory, the model enumerated all 16 one- and two-digit candidates before calling Python. The interpreter then correctly identified the ten primes. In a failed trajectory, the submitted code also executed correctly, but the preceding reasoning listed only six parenthesizations of an arithmetic expression. Python evaluated this incomplete list and returned two values instead of the correct four. The decisive error therefore occurred in the reasoning before tool invocation, not at the tool boundary.
The third trajectory exhibited the converse pattern. Python raised the same execution exception twice, yet the model recovered the correct answer from an algebraic derivation completed before either call. A tool-return position was therefore salient but not decisive for the final reward. Together, these cases illustrate why candidate discovery should cover the full response rather than treat tool observations as universal branch boundaries. These examples provide qualitative mechanism checks, not population-level or causal evidence. A controlled tool-boundary-only ablation remains necessary to quantify this design choice independently.
Figure 5. Training dynamics and branch selection. (a) Mean reward and (b) mean tool calls per trajectory; thick lines denote smoothed means, with light traces and shading showing variation. In the qualitative word clouds, (c) token size increases monotonically with candidate entropy, whereas (d) token size increases monotonically with post-decay branching priority among retained candidates. Entropy therefore favors selection, but path- and node-level decay can change the ranking and retain some positions below the entropy-only cutoff; sizes do not encode token frequency. A single-column two-by-two panel grid with mean reward at upper left and mean tool calls at lower left. The upper-right qualitative word cloud sizes candidate tokens by entropy. The lower-right cloud shows retained candidates sized by post-decay branching priority, preserving an overall entropy relationship while introducing rank reversals from path- and node-level decay. 5.4. Ablation Study The method motivates two quantitative predictions. Path-level and node-level decay should reduce complementary forms of allocation concentration, whereas CBV should improve learning beyond branch exploration alone. Table 2 tests these predictions under matched training, rollout, and evaluation protocols. Removing either decay level reduces the mathematical macro average by 1.5 points at both model scales. Removing both reduces it by 2.2 points, more than either individual ablation. The two decay terms therefore regulate distinct sources of allocation concentration. Removing CBV produces the largest losses, 3.0 points for Qwen3-1.7B and 2.9 points for Qwen3-4B. Branch exploration alone is therefore insufficient; branch outcomes must also inform local credit. Most of this reduction occurs on AIME 2024 and AIME 2025, the two benchmarks with the lowest absolute accuracy. Table 2. Component ablations for CBPO. Values are Pass@1 (%) and the five-task macro average. Shading marks the full method, and bold indicates the best value in each column. Method AIME24 AIME25 MATH500 GSM8K MATH Avg. Backbone: Qwen3-1.7B CBPO 26.7 33.3 86.4 93.2 90.4 66.0 w/o Path-level 23.3 30.0 86.2 92.8 90.2 64.5 w/o Node-level 23.3 30.0 86.1 93.0 90.3 64.5 w/o Dual decay 20.0 30.0 86.3 92.5 90.0 63.8 w/o CBV 20.0 26.7 85.5 92.9 90.1 63.0 Backbone: Qwen3-4B CBPO 30.0 36.7 89.5 96.3 94.0 69.3 w/o Path-level 26.7 33.3 89.3 95.9 93.8 67.8 w/o Node-level 26.7 33.3 89.0 96.0 93.9 67.8 w/o Dual decay 23.3 33.3 89.4 95.7 93.9 67.1 w/o CBV 23.3 30.0 89.0 96.0 93.7 66.4 Table 3. CBPO Pass@1 (%) under different rollout configurations. M = N + B M=N+B M = N + B . Shading marks the default configuration, and bold indicates the best value in each column. Rollout allocation Pass@1 accuracy (%) Total M M M Initial N N N Branch B B B AIME24 AIME25 MATH500 GSM8K MATH Avg. Backbone: Qwen3-1.7B 4 1 3 13.3 23.3 82.2 89.9 86.0 58.9 4 2 2 16.7 23.3 82.8 90.5 86.8 60.0 [3pt/3pt] 8 2 6 16.7 26.7 83.7 91.0 87.8 61.2 8 4 4 20.0 26.7 84.0 91.5 88.3 62.1 [3pt/3pt] 16 4 12 23.3 36.7 85.8 92.9 89.8 65.7 16 6 10 26.7 33.3 86.4 93.2 90.4 66.0 16 8 8 26.7 30.0 86.1 93.0 90.2 65.2 16 12 4 23.3 30.0 85.8 92.6 89.8 64.3 Backbone: Qwen3-4B 4 1 3 16.7 26.7 84.4 91.8 89.0 61.7 4 2 2 20.0 26.7 85.0 92.3 89.7 62.7 [3pt/3pt] 8 2 6 20.0 30.0 86.6 93.8 91.0 64.3 8 4 4 23.3 30.0 87.0 94.2 91.5 65.2 [3pt/3pt] 16 4 12 26.7 40.0 88.9 95.8 93.3 68.9 16 6 10 30.0 36.7 89.5 96.3 94.0 69.3 16 8 8 30.0 33.3 89.2 96.0 94.4 68.6 16 12 4 26.7 33.3 88.8 95.6 93.2 67.5 5.5. Branching Configuration Balanced branching requires sufficient independent paths for global coverage and sufficient shared-prefix continuations for local comparison. This trade-off is evaluated by varying the allocation between initial trajectories N N N and dynamic branches B B B . Total budgets are M = N + B ∈ { 4 , 8 , 16 } M=N+B\in\{4,8,16\} M = N + B ∈ { 4 , 8 , 16 } , with all other settings held fixed. Increasing M M M from 4 to 16 improves the macro average at both model scales. Within a fixed budget, too few initial trajectories restrict path coverage, whereas too few branches weaken exact-prefix comparisons. The highest macro average occurs at N = 6 , B = 10 N=6,B=10 N = 6 , B = 10 for both backbones. This shared optimum favors branch sampling while retaining sufficient independent trajectories for global coverage. 6. Conclusion CBPO addresses fine-grained credit assignment by separating two operations that branch-based RL often conflates. Full-response entropy scanning with path-level and node-level decay allocates a fixed rollout budget. Reward variation within exact-prefix groups then modulates the contribution of each sampled continuation. Prefix masking and hierarchical segmentation prevent shared tokens from receiving duplicated credit. With Qwen3-1.7B and Qwen3-4B, CBPO attains mathematical macro averages of 66.0% and 69.3% and search averages of 53.2 and 57.5. Cross-scale ablations attribute distinct gains to balanced allocation and CBV. However, the independent contribution of full-response scanning still requires a controlled boundary-only ablation. Within the evaluated models, tasks, and budgets, the evidence supports a bounded design principle: uncertainty identifies alternatives, whereas observed outcome variation provides a stronger signal for local credit assignment. Ethical Considerations The study uses public benchmarks and collects no new personal or human-subject data. Open-web retrieval may nevertheless expose a model to inaccurate, biased, offensive, or privacy-sensitive material. Benchmark accuracy does not establish the reliability or social neutrality of retrieved sources. Generated Python code runs in a sandbox, and tool calls are capped to limit security and resource risks. Like other branch-based methods, CBPO samples several continuations and therefore incurs additional generation cost. A fixed rollout budget bounds this cost, and all methods are compared using matched rollout slots. The experiments evaluate benchmark accuracy rather than deployment safety. High-stakes applications would require domain-specific testing, content filtering, access controls, and human oversight.