mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

What is the Alignment Objective of GRPO?

arXiv 2502.18548 ↗First posted 25 Feb 2025cs.LG cs.AIcited by 23

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Process reward models for reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

In this note, we examine the aggregation of preferences achieved by the Group Policy Optimisation (GRPO) algorithm, a reinforcement learning method used to train advanced artificial intelligence models such as DeepSeek-R1-Zero and DeepSeekMath. The GRPO algorithm trains a policy using a reward preference model, which is computed by sampling a set of outputs for a given context, observing the corresponding rewards, and applying shift-and-scale normalisation to these reward values. Additionally, it incorporates a penalty function to discourage deviations from a reference policy. We present a framework that enables us to characterise the stationary policies of the GRPO algorithm. This analysis reveals that the aggregation of preferences differs fundamentally from standard logarithmic pooling, which is implemented by other approaches such as RLHF. The precise form of preference aggregation arises from the way the reward preference model is defined and from the penalty function, which we show to essentially correspond to the reverse Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between the aggregation policy and the reference policy. Interestingly, we demonstrate that for groups of size two, the reward preference model corresponds to pairwise comparison preferences, similar to those in other alignment methods based on pairwise comparison feedback. We provide explicit characterisations of the aggregate preference for binary questions, for groups of size two, and in the limit of large group size. This provides insights into the dependence of the aggregate preference on parameters such as the regularisation constant and the confidence margin of question answers. Finally, we discuss the aggregation of preferences obtained by modifying the GRPO algorithm to use direct KL divergence as the penalty or to use rewards without scale normalisation.

Key facts. Cited by 23 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Process reward models for reasoning, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 5 of its 9 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Feb 2025.

Builds on

5 of 9 references.

References · 5

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
  3. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
  4. 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,562
  5. 2023Nash Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 220

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 10; 2026: 13.

23 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards: GRPO's Effective Loss, Dynamics, and Success Amplificationcited by 108
  2. 2025Online Difficulty Filtering for Reasoning Oriented Reinforcement Learningcited by 100
  3. 2025Improving Data Efficiency for LLM Reinforcement Fine-tuning Through Difficulty-targeted Online Data Selection and Rollout Replaycited by 52
  4. 2025Revisiting Group Relative Policy Optimization: Insights into On-Policy and Off-Policy Trainingcited by 33
  5. 2026Demystifying Group Relative Policy Optimization: Its Policy Gradient is a U-Statisticcited by 19
  6. 2025Alignment and Safety in Large Language Models: Safety Mechanisms, Training Paradigms, and Emerging Challengescited by 14
  7. 2025Robust Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for Large Language Models Fine-Tuningcited by 13
  8. 2025Ask a Strong LLM Judge when Your Reward Model is Uncertaincited by 13
  9. 2026Language-Guided Token Compression with Reinforcement Learning in Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 9
  10. 2025Large Language Models Reasoning Abilities Under Non-Ideal Conditions After RL-Fine-Tuningcited by 7
  11. 2025Inference-Time Alignment Control for Diffusion Models with Reinforcement Learning Guidancecited by 7
  12. 2026Why GRPO Needs Normalization: A Local-Curvature Perspective on Adaptive Gradientscited by 4
11 more
  1. 2026Asymmetric Prompt Weighting for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewardscited by 3
  2. 2026Small Agent Group is the Future of Digital Healthcited by 2
  3. 2026Listwise Policy Optimization: Group-based RLVR as Target-Projection on the LLM Response Simplexcited by 2
  4. 2025LaViPlan : Language-Guided Visual Path Planning with RLVRcited by 1
  5. 2026BASIS: Batchwise Advantage Estimation from Single-Rollout Information Sharing for LLM Reasoningcited by 1
  6. 2026f-GRPO and Beyond: Divergence-Based Reinforcement Learning Algorithms for General LLM Alignmentcited by 0
  7. 2026PerMix-RLVR: Preserving Persona Expressivity under Verifiable-Reward Alignmentcited by 0
  8. 2026V-tableR1: Process-Supervised Multimodal Table Reasoning with Critic-Guided Policy Optimizationcited by 0
  9. 2026Predictable GRPO: A Closed-Form Model of Training Dynamicscited by 0
  10. 2026GraphThink: Graph-Enhanced LLM Thinking for Long-Horizon Embodied Task Planningcited by 0
  11. 2026When KL Regularization Misfires in Group Policy Optimizationcited by 0

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Personalized Group Relative Policy Optimization for Heterogenous Preference Alignment
  2. 2026GOPO: Policy Optimization using Ranked Rewards
  3. 2026AMIR-GRPO: Inducing Implicit Preference Signals into GRPO
  4. 2025MO-GRPO: Mitigating Reward Hacking of Group Relative Policy Optimization on Multi-Objective Problems
  5. 2026GDPO: Group reward-Decoupled Normalization Policy Optimization for Multi-reward RL Optimization
  6. 2026On the Hidden Objective Biases of Group-based Reinforcement Learning
  7. 2025It Takes Two: Your GRPO Is Secretly DPO
  8. 2026Constrained Group Relative Policy Optimization