Dual-Channel Robust Group-Relative Policy Optimization via Advantage and Sequence-Weight Estimation

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is one of the most widely adopted RLVR algorithms for post-training large language models on reasoning tasks. We first show that GRPO admits an equivalent discriminative reformulation, in which policy optimization maximizes the expected score gap between verified positive and negative rollouts. This reformulation reveals two objective-level limitations: likelihood-misaligned surrogate scores, in which clipped ratio-based scores are optimized rather than the sequence likelihoods that govern generation, and score-insensitive credit assignment, in which rollout-level credit does not reflect the current score gaps between positive and negative rollouts. To address these limitations, we propose ConSPO, a Contrastive Sequence-level Policy Optimization method that uses length-normalized sequence log-probabilities as rollout scores and contrasts verified positive rollouts against negative distractors within the same group. ConSPO optimizes a group-wise InfoNCE-style objective to adaptively strengthen updates for poorly separated positives and high-scoring negatives, together with a curriculum-scheduled margin that preserves separation pressure as training progresses. Experiments across diverse settings show that ConSPO outperforms strong baselines on challenging reasoning benchmarks. Code will be released upon paper acceptance.

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) has shown strong effectiveness in reinforcement learning from verifiable feedback, where sampled rollouts can be compared within a group using task-provided correctness signals. However, extending group-relative optimization beyond verifiable settings is challenging because success in many tasks is not captured by a single correctness criterion. We propose \textbf{Reference-Relative Policy Optimization (RRPO)}, which generalizes GRPO by replacing direct correctness-based advantage construction with reference-relative contrastive comparisons. RRPO first uses \emph{stratified conditional rollouts} to construct positive and negative anchor sets, and then trains a metric projection head with a set-contrastive objective to compare candidate rollouts against these anchors. The resulting alignment scores directly define contrastive advantages: during policy optimization, the projection head is frozen, and the scores are centered within each rollout group in a standard group-relative objective. We evaluate RRPO using anchor-based contrastive advantages throughout policy optimization, without relying on task ground-truth verifiers. Across verifiable reasoning, open-ended generation, and post-SFT settings, RRPO remains competitive with verifier-based optimization, improves over weakly supervised baselines, and provides additional gains after supervised fine-tuning.

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) eliminates the learned critic in PPO by using the mean reward of grouped rollouts as a baseline. We provide a rigorous derivation of GRPO from first principles of the policy gradient theorem, revealing a fundamental credit assignment failure: under output-only reward, every token in a rollout receives identical advantage, collapsing token-level credit to a single scalar. We prove this induces gradient sparsity that intensifies over training, and demonstrate empirically via SVD analysis of GRPO gradients on Nemotron-4B/GSM8K that the gradient matrix has effective rank $\approx$ 2 regardless of group size $R \in \{2, 4, 8\}$. We formalize this as an intrinsic rank-2 structure arising from the zero-sum constraint on advantages and derive conditions under which GRPO's baseline is optimal. Our results characterize when GRPO's simplicity is theoretically justified and identify the credit assignment bottleneck as the key limitation for multi-step reasoning.