Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards assigns one terminal reward to an entire reasoning trajectory, obscuring how individual reasoning steps contributed to the outcome. GRPO broadcasts a group-normalized advantage to every response token, while finer-grained approaches often rely on dense auxiliary rollouts or branching schemes that can also alter the data used for policy updates. We cast the missing middle as budgeted measurement: with a limited rollout budget, which partial solutions should be evaluated, and how should their value estimates refine credit? ProbePO selects partial-solution states with a reward-free uncertainty score and estimates their expected verifier rewards under a capped continuation budget. ProbePO redistributes, rather than replaces, GRPO's trajectory-level advantage across tokens while preserving each trajectory's mean token-level advantage; probe continuations serve only as measurements. Across three DeepSeekMath and Qwen-family models spanning 1.5B-7B parameters, ProbePO consistently outperforms GRPO and achieves the highest accuracy among the four evaluated methods in 16 of 18 model-benchmark comparisons. Against dense-probing VinePPO on DeepSeekMath-7B, ProbePO achieves higher accuracy on all six benchmarks with 76% less end-to-end training time.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: ProbePO improves cost-quality tradeoff by assigning within-trajectory credit with a sparse-probe budget. GRPO incurs no auxiliary-probe overhead but provides only trajectory-level credit. Dense per-boundary probing, exemplified by VinePPO, provides fine resolution at high rollout cost, while finite-sample Monte Carlo differences remain noise-sensitive. ProbePO instead caps the auxiliary-probe budget, concentrates it on selected pivots, and shrinks their value estimates before deriving segment-wise credit. The pipeline first fixes the policy-update trajectories, then ranks and probes candidate boundaries under the group-wide budget, and finally adds a token-mean-zero segment residual to the GRPO base advantage.
Method
MATH-500
Olympiad Bench
College Math
AMC
Minerva Math
AIME24 (@32)
Avg-6
DeepSeekMath-7B-SFT
GRPO
42.55
12.67
22.57
14.38
11.79
1.77
17.62
SPO-tree
37.58
9.93
20.11
12.65
10.96
0.83
15.34
TreePO
43.86
11.73
22.46
11.22
9.38
0.83
16.58
ProbePO (ours)
45.81
14.47
22.77
17.09
12.96
2.92
19.34
R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
Table 1: Terminal accuracy (%) across three backbones and six mathematical reasoning benchmarks. Avg-6 is the unweighted benchmark mean; bold marks the best score within each backbone.
Figure 2: Boundary values and segment credit. Two held-out MATH responses from the trained R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B checkpoint: (a) a correct cube-path response and (b) an incorrect parallelogram response. Top panels show the anchor, shrunk pivot estimates ( M=8,n0=4 ), and terminal reward; bottom panels compare ProbePO and GRPO advantages on a shared scale, with widths proportional to token counts. The detour ( I2 , a) receives negative credit; the answer reversal ( I3 , b) receives the strongest penalty. Each ProbePO profile preserves the GRPO token mean; in (b), r=0.10 denotes a boxed but incorrect answer. Appendix D.5 provides the full contexts and pooled- M=32 check.
Figure 4
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Terminal-checkpoint gains. (a) Avg-6 difference from each setting’s GRPO reference. (b) ProbePO minus GRPO by benchmark. AIME24 uses Mean@32; dashed cells mark tasks on which another method scores higher.
(a) Terminal accuracy (%; higher is better)
Method
MATH 500
Olympiad Bench
College Math
AMC
Minerva Math
AIME24 (@32)
Avg-6
ProbePO (ours)
45.81
14.47
22.77
17.09
12.96
2.92
19.34
VinePPO
43.69
11.65
22.11
15.81
10.27
0.31
17.31
Appendix
Table 3: Quality and cost against dense probing. Panel (a) reports terminal benchmark accuracy under the shared DeepSeekMath setting; panel (b) reports end-to-end training cost.
Method
Training time (hours)
MATH-500
Avg-6
ProbePO
11.14
80.01
41.03
GRPO
11.14
75.52
39.08
Δ
—
+4.49
+1.95
Appendix
Table 4: Equal-training-time Qwen3-4B comparison (%). Both methods use approximately 11.14 logged trainer hours on the same 8× B200 hardware.
Figure 5: Qwen3-4B training dynamics. Monitoring accuracy over the shared headline horizon; points denote evaluations and lines connect successive checkpoints.
Profile
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Panel (a), deployed M=8
+0.34
−0.41
+0.72
Panel (a), pooled M=32
+0.41
−0.10
+0.53
Panel (b), deployed M=8
−1.08
−1.08
−2.89
Panel (b), pooled M=32
−1.37
−0.80
−3.24
Appendix
Table 5: Sensitivity of the displayed token-advantage profiles. The pooled- M=32 calculation preserves the (+,−,+) pattern in column (a) and the terminal-most-negative ordering in column (b).
(a) Measurement and value estimation
Method
Budgeted spend
Reward-free interior pilot
Estimates Vπθ(s)
GRPO [ Shao et al., 2024 ]
(no spend)
—
—
VinePPO [ Kazemnejad et al., 2025 ]
×
— (uniform)
✓
SPO-tree [ Guo et al., 2025 ]
×
×
±
TreeRPO [ Yang et al., 2025b ]
×
×
±
TreePO [ Li et al., 2026a ]
±
×
±
Appendix
Table 6: Mechanism comparison. Cells summarize the cited configurations.
Figure 6: Offline selector diagnostics. (a) Rank correlation between reward-free signals and action-fork variance. (b) Oracle variance captured by the top-ranked versus a uniformly selected boundary. Error bars and brackets show the bootstrap intervals described in the text.
Parameter
Value
Backbone group size G
8 responses per prompt
Group-wide probe budget B
40 continuation rollouts
Continuations per selected pivot M
8
Shrinkage pseudo-count n0
4
Residual weight α
1
Stage-1 score
Hmax with forward window L=8
Appendix
Table 7: Shared ProbePO acquisition and estimator settings. These values apply to the three headline ProbePO arms in Table 1 .
Parameter
DeepSeekMath 7B
R1-Distill-Qwen 1.5B (2K context)
Qwen3 4B
Learning rate
5×10−7
1×10−6
1×10−6
Schedule
constant; no warmup
3% linear warmup, then constant
constant; no warmup
Batch / mini
64/8
64/16
512/8
PPO epochs
1
1
1
PPO clip ratio
0.2
0.2
0.2
KL regularization
loss-side 10−3 low_var_kl
loss-side 10−3 low_var_kl
loss-side 10−3 low_var_kl
Appendix
Table 8: Optimization and batching for the headline ProbePO runs. Batch and mini-batch are prompt counts.
Parameter
DeepSeekMath 7B
R1-Distill-Qwen 1.5B (2K context)
Qwen3 4B
Train/probe temperature, top- p
0.8,0.95
1.0,1.0
1.0,1.0
Maximum prompt tokens
512
512
2,048
Configured response-token limit
1,024
4,096
4,096
Rollout context limit
4,096
2,048 (context binding)
6,144
Training horizon (steps)
1,000
1,000
27
Appendix
Table 9: Decoding, context, and training horizons for the headline ProbePO runs. Probe continuations inherit the backbone decoding parameters.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) plays a crucial role in expanding the capacities of LLM reasoning, but GRPO-style training is dominated by expensive rollouts and wastes compute on unusable prompts. We propose Prompt Replay, an overhead-free online data selection method for GRPO that reuses prompts only (not trajectories), to preserve on-policy optimization. After each step, we insert prompts with medium difficulty into a buffer, and prioritize prompts closer to a pass rate of 0.5 (half answers correct, half wrong) to maximize the advantage, thus learning signal. Training batches are formed by mixing reused prompts with fresh samples, with cooldown steps and max reuse times controlling aggressiveness vs risk of overfitting. Across multiple model families (Llama-3.2- 3B, Qwen3-8B) and training datasets (Dolci, Polaris), evaluated using average accuracy on six standard math benchmarks, Prompt Replay reduces zero-variance prompts, increases mean absolute advantage and shows faster initial accuracy gains. Yet, it plateaus and converges with the baseline, as too aggressive configuration was used. The method is most efficient when the rollouts are the primary bottleneck and the dataset is difficult for the model. We additionally observe that Qwen2.5-Math can exhibit spurious-reward effects that invalidates ablations, raising a warning signal for using it as a sole testbed for GRPO method research.
Andrei Baroian, Rutger Berger
Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science Leiden University
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.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has advanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) by leveraging direct outcome verification instead of learned reward models. Building on this paradigm, Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) eliminates the need for critic models but suffers from indiscriminate credit assignment for intermediate steps, which limits its ability to identify effective reasoning strategies and incurs overthinking. In this work, we introduce a model-free and verifiable process supervision via probing the model's belief in the correct answer throughout its reasoning trajectory. By segmenting the generation into discrete steps and tracking the conditional probability of the correct answer appended at each segment boundary, we efficiently compute interpretable segment-wise progress measurements to refine GRPO's trajectory-level feedback. This approach enables more targeted and sample-efficient policy updates, while avoiding the need for intermediate supervision derived from costly Monte Carlo rollouts or auxiliary models. Experiments on mathematical and general-domain benchmarks show consistent gains over GRPO across diverse models: up to 2.6-point accuracy improvements and 13.7% reasoning-length reductions on math tasks, and up to 2.4 points and 4% on general-domain tasks, demonstrating strong generalization.
Jingyi Wang, Lei Zhu, Tengjin Weng +8
Tsinghua University · Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab · Shenzhen University