PreprintCited by 2Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsTopic ModelingMachine Learning and Algorithms

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards: GRPO's Effective Loss, Dynamics, and Success Amplification

Open access
Mroueh, Youssef·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) was introduced and used recently for promoting reasoning in LLMs under verifiable (binary) rewards. We show that the mean + variance calibration of these rewards induces a weighted contrastive loss in which the contrastive samples are synthetic data drawn from the previous policy. While GRPO was originally paired with clipping to keep updates near the old policy, we analyze variants that differ in reward normalization (mean-only vs mean + variance) and in how they regularize updates using KL divergence: either penalizing divergence from the previous model (mirror), penalizing divergence from a fixed reference model $π_{\mathrm{ref}}$, or combining both forms of regularization. For each, the optimal policy $π_n$ admits an explicit form in terms of the binary reward and the first and second order statistics of the reward under $π_{n-1}$, as well as the policies $π_{n-1}$ and $π_{\mathrm{ref}}$. Iterating results in a sequence $\{π_n\}$ whose probability of success (PoS) obeys a simple recurrence that converges to a fixed point determined by the reference PoS and the regularization strength. We further show that this fixed point exceeds the reference, demonstrating that GRPO amplifies the policy's probability of success.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2503.06639

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent studies primarily rely on rule-based verification, where agent trajectories are evaluated against predefined rules.

    “Recent studies primarily rely on rule-based verification (Shao et al., 2024; Mroueh, 2025), where agent trajectories are evaluated against predefined rules (Wei et al., 2025).”

    From AJ-Bench: Benchmarking Agent-as-a-Judge for Environment-Aware Evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as Mroueh, 2025

    The Introduction (p. 2) describes several rule-based checks used for verifiable rewards, including answer matching, code tests, and formatting checks. It also includes LLM-as-judge verification and does not establish that recent studies primarily rely on rule-based methods. The separate claim about evaluating agent trajectories is cited to Wei et al., not Mroueh. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Still being checked.

This paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mroueh, Y.
Corresponding author
Mroueh, Youssef
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W6967222937
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
Keywords
Group Relative Policy Optimization, verifiable rewards, reinforcement learning, contrastive loss, KL divergence regularization, policy optimization, success probability, fixed-point analysis, large language models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review