Spurious Advantage Hidden in GRPO

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is a standard algorithm for reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, but its group-mean-centered advantage can fail under binary rewards. The failure mode is gradient starvation: when every response in a group is correct or every response is wrong, the centered advantage is exactly zero and the policy receives no learning signal. We prove that the true degeneracy rate always exceeds the i.i.d. Bernoulli prediction by Jensen's inequality, and observe a 0.69 degeneracy rate at group size four in logged Qwen3.5-9B GSM8K training. We then show that the fixed-reference Sign advantage, $A=2r-1$, performs pass@$G$ failure descent by increasing the probability that at least one sample in the group succeeds. On the full GSM8K test set across seven seeds, Sign reaches 73.8% accuracy versus 28.4% for standard normalized group-mean DrGRPO at group size four, a 45.4 point gain with $p<0.0001$. The effect is directionally consistent on Llama-3.1-8B and positive but underpowered on a MATH-500 transfer check. Pass@$k$ analysis indicates that the main benefit is search compression rather than large capacity expansion, aligning the empirical gains with recent RLVR ceiling observations.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is commonly based on group sampling to estimate advantages and stabilize policy updates. In practice, computational limits often rule out very large groups, so training proceeds with finite rollout sets that can reinforce only the correct behavior they expose. At practical group sizes, updates can miss rare-correct trajectories while still containing mixed rewards, concentrating probability on more common sampled solutions. We derive the probability of such prompt-local tail-miss events as a function of group size, showing non-monotonic behavior, and in the categorical abstraction characterize how unsampled-correct mass can shrink even as total correct mass grows. Motivated by this analysis, we propose a difficulty-aware scaling coefficient, inspired by Focal loss, that down-weights updates on high-success sampled groups. Empirically, categorical simulation illustrates the same effect in the categorical setting, Maze provides a single-solution test, and LLM experiments include a representative GRPO group-size sweep together with fixed-$N$ transfer across GRPO, DAPO, and CISPO. On Qwen2.5-7B at $N{=}8$, our method improves average math pass@256 from 64.1 $\rightarrow$ 70.3 (GRPO), 69.3 $\rightarrow$ 72.5 (DAPO), and 73.2 $\rightarrow$ 76.8 (CISPO); OOD pass@256 also improves in all three cases, without increasing group size or computational cost.

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is an effective recipe for training reasoning models with verifier-based outcome rewards, but its supervision is sparse: when all sampled trajectories for a prompt receive the same verifier reward, the group-relative advantage collapses to zero and learning stalls. Outcome-only rewards also provide no step-level credit assignment, limiting exploration and making it harder to learn robust reasoning. We present VeriGate (Verifier-Gated Step-Level GRPO), a verifier-gated extension of GRPO that addresses these limitations with three design choices. First, VeriGate keeps the verifier in charge whenever verifier rewards induce a meaningful preference among sampled trajectories, and uses process supervision only when verifier rewards are degenerate. Second, instead of collapsing Process Reward Model (PRM) step scores into a single trajectory reward, VeriGate converts them into future-cumulated rewards to assign continuation-aware credit. Third, VeriGate transforms these rewards into group-normalized token-level advantages, restoring informative gradients and fine-grained credit assignment while remaining less susceptible to reward hacking than methods that optimize aggregated PRM scores. Empirically, training on MATH with 1.5B and 7B Qwen2.5-Instruct models and evaluating on six reasoning benchmarks, VeriGate improves average accuracy by about 20% and 12% for 1.5B and 7B models respectively, substantially reduces zero-gradient failures, decreases reward-hacking behavior, and improves reasoning quality relative to outcome-only GRPO and PRM-as-outcome baselines.