Difficulty-Adaptive Tree-Structured Policy Optimization for Expanding Reasoning Coverage in RLVR

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has achieved substantial gains in single-attempt accuracy (Pass@1) on reasoning tasks, yet often suffers from reduced multi-sample coverage (Pass@K), indicating diversity collapse. We identify a structural cause for this degradation: common RLVR objectives, such as GRPO, are indifferent to how probability mass is distributed among correct solutions. Combined with stochastic training dynamics, this indifference induces a self-reinforcing collapse, in which probability mass concentrates on a narrow subset of correct outputs while alternative valid solutions are suppressed. We formalize this collapse mechanism and further characterize the optimal policy structure under two complementary criteria: robustness and entropy-regularized optimality, which identify the Uniform-Correct Policy as uniquely optimal. Motivated by this analysis, we propose Uniform-Correct Policy Optimization (UCPO), a modification to GRPO that adds a conditional uniformity penalty on the policy's distribution over correct solutions. The penalty redistributes gradient signal toward underrepresented correct responses, encouraging uniform allocation of probability mass within the correct set. Across three models (1.5B-7B parameters) and five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, UCPO improves Pass@K and diversity while maintaining competitive Pass@1, achieving up to +10% absolute improvement on AIME24 at Pass@64 and up to 45% higher equation-level diversity within the correct set. The code is available at https://github.com/AnamikaLochab/UCPO.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a key approach for enhancing the reasoning abilities of large language models. However, RLVR often suffers from \emph{diversity collapse}: Pass@$1$ improves while high-$k$ Pass@$k$ degrades, which is viewed as a narrowing of the model's reasoning boundary. We formalize this diversity collapse through the lens of \emph{overtraining}: once a problem's contribution to the reference metric has effectively saturated, further updates no longer expand what the model can solve but still concentrate probability mass on the trajectories favored by on-policy sampling. Under a standard setup with few rollouts per problem, even a single observed success places a problem in a nearly saturated regime for high-$k$ Pass@$k$, so most updates in standard RLVR are overtraining from the boundary perspective. This perspective also suggests a reading of whether RLVR can expand the model's reasoning abilities beyond the base model: since RLVR is structurally biased against high-$k$ Pass@$k$, its aggregate decline does not by itself mean that no new reasoning gains occurred. Interventionally, restricting updates to problems with zero observed success lifts Pass@$256$ above the base model on difficult benchmarks; observationally, a non-trivial fraction of initially unsolvable problems become solvable during standard RLVR training. Building on these findings, we propose \emph{Bayesian Boundary Gating} (BBG), which redirects optimization away from overtraining by estimating each problem's marginal contribution to the reasoning boundary. Across multiple reasoning benchmarks, BBG improves average Pass@$k$ across a wide range of $k$.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become a standard paradigm for enhancing the capability of large reasoning models. RLVR typically samples responses independently and optimizes the policy using from final answers. This paradigm has two limitations. First, independently responses often contain similar intermediate reasoning steps, causing redundant exploration and wasted computation. Second, sparse final-answer rewards make it hard to identify useful steps. Tree-based methods partly address this problem by sharing prefixes and comparing branches from the same prefix to provide fine-grained signals. However, tree branches are still expanded independently. When different branches reach similar reasoning states, they cannot share information and repeat similar exploration. Moreover, tree-based methods ignore such dispersion and only perform local comparisons within separate branches, which can lead to higher variance in advantage estimation. To address this challenge, we propose GraphPO (Graph-based Policy Optimization), a novel RL framework that represents rollouts as a directed acyclic graph, with reasoning steps as edges and semantic states summarized from the reasoning paths as nodes. GraphPO merges semantically equivalent reasoning paths into equivalence classes, allowing them to share suffixes and reallocating budget away from redundant expansions to diverse exploration. Furthermore, we assign efficiency advantages to incoming edges and correctness advantages to outgoing edges, thereby improving inference efficiency while deriving process supervision from outcome. Theory shows that GraphPO reduces advantage-estimation variance and enhances reasoning efficiency. Experiments on three LLMs across reasoning and agentic search benchmarks show that GraphPO consistently outperforms chain- and tree-based baselines with the same token budgets or response budgets.