Post-training plays a pivotal role in enhancing the reasoning capabilities and task-specific expertise of large language models (LLMs). Despite recent advances in post-training methods, such as Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), their practical deployment remains impeded by training instability arising from the reliance on importance sampling. We introduce Group Variance Policy Optimization (GVPO), a novel post-training method that integrates the analytical solution of KL-constrained reward maximization into its gradient weighting scheme. This formulation provides an intuitive interpretation: GVPO's gradient corresponds to the mean squared error between the central distance of implicit rewards and that of actual rewards. GVPO offers two key advantages: (1) it guarantees a unique optimal solution, exactly to the KL-constrained reward maximization objective, and (2) it enables flexible sampling distributions without requiring importance sampling. Beyond general post-training, we show that GVPO naturally extends to on-policy distillation (OPD). Furthermore, GVPO enables the optimization of a broad family of extended OPD objectives, providing a principled foundation for diverse objective design. By unifying theoretical guarantees with practical adaptability, GVPO establishes a new paradigm for reliable and versatile LLM post-training and on-policy distillation.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Three equivalent formulations of the GVPO loss provide distinct interpretations : (A) the negative log-likelihood perspective highlights that GVPO can accommodate diverse sampling distributions without requiring importance sampling; (B) the mean squared error perspective reveals GVPO’s unique optimum, which simultaneously maximizes the reward subject to a KL-divergence constraint; and (C) the regularization perspective shows GVPO’s implicit regularization terms, which promote stable policy optimization. We set the hyperparameter β=1 for simplicity.
Fig. 2 : GVPO for extended on-policy distillation objectives. An extended OPD objective assigns a weighting scheme f(x,y) to each (x,y) and minimizes the reverse KL divergence between the induced distributions Pθ and Pt . GVPO optimizes it without computing partition functions, enabling sampling from πθ beyond Pθ while ensuring the desired optimum πθ∗=πt .
Fig. 3 : OPD’s response length continually decreases under policy-gradient training across different learning rates.
Algorithm
AIME2024
AMC
MATH500
Minerva
Olympiadbench
Average
Optimal Solution Guarantee
No IS Weight for Off-policy
Qwen2.5-Math-7B
14.68
38.55
64.00
27.20
30.66
35.02
+GRPO
14.79
55.42
80.00
41.17
42.07
46.69
×
×
+Dr.GRPO
16.56
48.19
81.20
44.48
43.40
46.77
×
×
+Remax
17.19
60.24
82.00
40.44
45.19
49.01
×
×
+Reinforce++
16.67
54.22
80.40
43.01
41.78
47.22
×
×
+GSPO
18.33
61.44
81.60
40.44
44.74
49.31
×
×
TABLE I : Performance comparison of post-training algorithms on Qwen2.5-Math-7B across mathematical reasoning benchmarks, along with key theoretical properties, including whether each method provides the optimal-solution guarantee and whether it avoids the use of importance sampling for off-policy training.
Figure 5
Algorithm
AIME24
AMC
MATH500
Minerva
Olympiadbench
GVPO
20.72
62.65
83.80
45.95
46.96
GVPO - Var
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GVPO - Cov
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GVPO - Var - Cov
7.19
39.76
73.00
34.93
35.70
GVPO - Var + Entropy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GVPO - Var + Entropy (LR=1e-6)
3.02
39.76
33.20
23.16
8.89
TABLE II : Ablation of GVPO Regularization Terms
Algorithm
AIME2024
AMC
MATH500
Minerva
Olympiadbench
GRPO
13.59 ± 1.11
44.34 ± 2.19
76.30 ± 1.35
35.40 ± 1.04
38.65 ± 0.74
GVPO
15.56 ± 1.05
45.78 ± 2.05
77.36 ± 0.98
36.03 ± 1.15
39.58 ± 1.08
TABLE III : Algorithm Performance Comparison across Different Random Seeds
Algorithm
Algorithmic Thinking
Constraint Satisfaction
Logical Reasoning
Mathematical Domains
Pattern Recognition
Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct
7.00
1.24
24.17
22.73
13.90
+GRPO
27.95
11.90
61.83
37.52
25.65
+ GVPO
38.38
17.83
70.72
63.90
30.07
TABLE IV : Algorithm Performance Comparison on Reasoning Gym across Multiple Domains
Algorithm
AIME24
AMC
MATH500
Minerva
Olympiad
Llama
5.00
19.27
50.40
22.42
17.04
+GRPO
8.54
19.27
52.60
25.37
16.15
+ GVPO
11.56
20.48
56.60
29.41
20.59
TABLE V : Performance Comparison on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Algorithm
AIME2024
AMC
MATH500
Minerva
Olympiadbench
Average
Teacher: DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B
SFT
1.66
15.66
49.40
15.44
15.70
19.57
Seqkd
1.45
16.86
45.40
15.44
16.14
19.06
PG
7.29
27.71
49.20
16.17
23.40
24.75
GVPO
9.06
39.75
68.40
29.41
33.33
35.99
Teacher: DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B
TABLE VI : Performance comparison of on-policy distillation algorithms across mathematical reasoning benchmarks.
Fig. 7 : Ablation on α . Each line represents a dataset. The left and right figures show results for Llama and Qwen, respectively.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Algorithm
Reward
Win Rate
Accuracy
Gpt-4o
Gemini-2.5-pro
Deepseek-R1
Human
SFT
2.84
41.85%
—
—
—
—
—
+DPO
4.83
68.28%
60.43%
31%
40%
25%
34%
+GVPO
5.75
79.49%
64.93%
69%
60%
75%
66%
Appendix
TABLE VII : Algorithm Performance Comparison on Summarization
Algorithm
Algorithmic Thinking
Constraint Satisfaction
Logical Reasoning
Mathematical Domains
Pattern Recognition
Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct
7.00
1.24
24.17
22.73
13.90
+GRPO
27.95
11.90
61.83
37.52
25.65
+ GVPO
38.38
17.83
70.72
63.90
30.07
Appendix
TABLE VIII : Algorithm Performance Comparison on Reasoning Gym across Multiple Domains
Post-training plays a crucial role in refining and aligning large language models to meet specific tasks and human preferences. While recent advancements in post-training techniques, such as Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), leverage increased sampling with relative reward scoring to achieve superior performance, these methods often suffer from training instability that limits their practical adoption. As a next step, we present Group Variance Policy Optimization (GVPO). GVPO incorporates the analytical solution to KL-constrained reward maximization directly into its gradient weights, ensuring alignment with the optimal policy. The method provides intuitive physical interpretations: its gradient mirrors the mean squared error between the central distance of implicit rewards and that of actual rewards. GVPO offers two key advantages: (1) it guarantees a unique optimal solution, exactly the KL-constrained reward maximization objective, (2) it supports flexible sampling distributions that avoids on-policy and importance sampling limitations. By unifying theoretical guarantees with practical adaptability, GVPO establishes a new paradigm for reliable and versatile LLM post-training.
Kaichen Zhang, Yuzhong Hong, Junwei Bao +4
Thrust of Artificial Intelligence, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Zuoyebang Education Technology · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, HKUST
Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) has become a widely used approach for post-training Large Language Models (LLMs) for reasoning. In GRPO, the group gradients induced by different queries within the same mini-batch are directly averaged to form the policy update. However, these group gradients can point in conflicting directions. Our empirical analysis suggests that group-gradient conflicts tend to be associated with less effective policy updates, motivating the need for a reliable aggregated update direction under such conflicts. Standard GRPO aggregation treats the realized group gradients as deterministic contributions and does not account for differences in their reliability during aggregation. To address this issue, we propose Gradient Uncertainty-Aware Policy Optimization (GUPO), which models each group gradient as a random variable under a Bayesian formulation and estimates its probability distribution. GUPO then derives gradient uncertainty using a Dirichlet-based formulation and uses it to calibrate the contribution of each group gradient during aggregation. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of GUPO.
Peizheng Guo, Jianqi Zhang, Xingyu Zhang +4
Institute of Software Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · National Key Laboratory of Space Integrated Information System +1
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a standard paradigm for post-training large language models. While Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is widely adopted, its coarse credit assignment uniformly penalizes failed rollouts, lacking the token-level focus needed to efficiently address specific deviations. Self-Distillation Policy Optimization (SDPO) addresses this by providing denser, more targeted logit-level supervision that facilitates rapid early improvement, yet it frequently collapses during prolonged training. We trace this late-stage instability to two intrinsic flaws: self-distillation on already-correct samples introduces optimization ambiguity, and the self-teacher's signal reliability progressively degrades. To resolve these issues, we propose Sample-Routed Policy Optimization (SRPO), a unified on-policy framework that routes correct samples to GRPO's reward-aligned reinforcement and failed samples to SDPO's targeted logit-level correction. SRPO further incorporates an entropy-aware dynamic weighting mechanism to suppress high-entropy, unreliable distillation targets while emphasizing confident ones. Evaluated across five benchmarks and two model scales, SRPO achieves both the rapid early improvement of SDPO and the long-horizon stability of GRPO. It consistently surpasses the peak performance of both baselines, raising the five-benchmark average on Qwen3-8B by 3.4% over GRPO and 6.3% over SDPO, while simultaneously yielding moderate response lengths and lowering per-step compute cost by up to 17.2%.
Gengsheng Li, Tianyu Yang, Junfeng Fang +6
Foundation Model Research Center, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · National University of Singapore +2