Where Groups Split: A Probe Prior for Nonzero Within-Group Variance in RL Post-Training

Group relative policy optimization learns from a question only when the sampled responses disagree. A group that is entirely correct or entirely incorrect has zero reward variance and a zero advantage. On the Web, that group has already spent its searches and page fetches. Gaussian curricula aim the next batch at pass rates where a finite group can still mix. A Gaussian on the latest empirical rate treats every all-fail history as the same point, and a center stepped by the average signed change of those rates is pushed by prompts already stuck at 0 or 1. RIDGE keeps the Gaussian curriculum and changes the coordinate, the center, and the width. Each prompt carries a Beta posterior. The sampling weight is the marginal of a Gaussian target under a Gaussian approximation of that posterior, divided by a prediction of tool-call cost. The center and the width are an exponential smooth of the posterior means of groups that just came back mixed. All-correct and all-incorrect groups refresh the posterior and do not move the center. The GRPO update itself is unchanged. On two math backbones and a retrieval-augmented question answerer, RIDGE raises average accuracy by 3.4 and 2.9 points over GRPO and average exact match by 3.7 points, at 29.6% fewer math rollouts and 32.7% fewer tool calls than dynamic sampling.

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.

Recent methods for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) use rollout diversity to improve reasoning performance or training efficiency. Despite these gains, the extent to which differences among correct-answer rollouts reflect useful alternative reasoning or unresolved errors remains poorly understood. We investigate this question through a blind paired analysis of a model trained with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), comparing the highest- and lowest-agreement correct-answer traces for the same problem. Across 126 pairs, low-agreement traces have more spurious reasoning than high-agreement traces (35% vs. 22%), including internal inconsistencies and misuse of problem conditions. Based on these findings, we propose RoAR (Rollout-Agreement Reward), which adds reasoning-level agreement to GRPO's rewards for verified-correct rollouts. RoAR computes this signal from existing on-policy rollout groups, requiring no human-written rationales, additional sampling, or separately trained process evaluator. On five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, the 1.5B GRPO-RoAR model reaches 55.5% mean pass@1 under zero-shot evaluation using 7K training examples, exceeding GRPO and GRPO-CARE by 6.0 and 5.5 percentage points. A separate blind audit of 100 problems answered correctly by all four 1.5B models finds spurious rates of 18% for GRPO-RoAR, 32% for GRPO, 27% for GRPO-CARE, and 37% for DRA-GRPO. Our findings identify reasoning validity as an important consideration when using rollout differences to guide learning. Our code is available at https://github.com/ldi-kyunghee/RoAR.