跳到正文
arXiv cs.CL· Vikash Singh, Weicong Chen, Debargha Ganguly, Yanyan Zhang, Mohsen Hariri, Sreehari Sankar, Wang Yang, Chaoda Song, Alexander Nemecek, Osama Zafar, Yuting Shao, Kai Ye, Biyao Zhang, Xinpeng Li, Shouren Wang, Erman Ayday, Jing Ma, Sanmukh Rao Kuppannagari, Vipin Chaudhary·· 10 小时前AI 评分32

在 GRPO 中,密集奖励值得消耗这些 token 吗?

Are Dense Rewards Worth Their Tokens in GRPO?

AI 导读

研究提出匹配算力协议,在 1,668 次运行、六个模型上重新比较密集过程奖励与 GRPO。在 Qwen2.5-1.5B 上,Monte-Carlo 奖励每次更新领先标准 GRPO,但在等 token 预算下最终低 14.3 个百分点、等训练时间下低 7.8 个百分点,四种密集奖励变体均未超越 GRPO。

正文 · 原文

Authors:Vikash Singh, Weicong Chen, Debargha Ganguly, Yanyan Zhang, Mohsen Hariri, Sreehari Sankar, Wang Yang, Chaoda Song, Alexander Nemecek, Osama Zafar, Yuting Shao, Kai Ye, Biyao Zhang, Xinpeng Li, Shouren Wang, Erman Ayday, Jing Ma, Sanmukh Rao Kuppannagari, Vipin Chaudhary

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:RLVR trains language models to reason by rewarding correct final answers. A widely used algorithm, group-relative policy optimization (GRPO), gives every token of a solution the same credit, so dense process rewards have been proposed to credit intermediate steps, for example with a Monte-Carlo reward that scores each step by sampling continuations from it. Comparing such a reward with GRPO per training update, or vetting it with a gradient test on a single batch, leaves out what it costs: in our setting, the continuations alone take 91% of all generated tokens. We introduce a matched-compute protocol that gives every training intervention the same budget, measured in generated tokens and training GPU-hours, and tests it in preregistered studies with controls for side effects. Across 1,668 runs on six models, matching compute reverses the ranking. On Qwen2.5-1.5B, the Monte-Carlo reward leads standard GRPO per update, yet ends 14.3 percentage points lower at equal tokens and 7.8 points lower at equal training time, and none of four dense-reward variants outperforms GRPO even with as much training time. A per-token gradient test orders these rewards as training does but overestimates each by one to two points, as much as the gains it is meant to detect. In contrast, training on the prompts whose predicted success is nearest 1/2 improves accuracy at matched compute, by 1.7 points on Qwen3-0.6B and 0.8 on Qwen2.5-1.5B. These gains replicate on fresh seeds and unseen problems, and a simple rule, that the candidate prompts are predicted to fail more often than not, predicted where they appear in five of six preregistered tests. Both gains come early in training, and standard GRPO with twice the initial learning rate comes within half a point of them. We argue that training interventions should be validated at matched compute, which overturns some apparent gains and confirms others.
Comments: 59 pages (10 pages of main text), 18 figures, 27 tables. Code: this https URL
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
ACM classes: I.2.6; I.2.7
Cite as: arXiv:2611.13560 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2611.13560v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.13560

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Weicong Chen [view email]
[v1] Tue, 10 Nov 2026 04:25:22 UTC (2,230 KB)

来源:arXiv cs.CL · arxiv.org