Predictable GRPO: A Closed-Form Model of Training Dynamics
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We develop a first-principles reduced-order model of these dynamics. Under a single mean-field assumption that summarizes the policy by its expected reward, we reduce the GRPO update to a stochastically-forced damped oscillator whose mass, damping, and stiffness are fixed in closed form by the optimizer hyperparameters together with a single measured curvature scale -- momentum supplies the inertia, off-policy lag erodes the damping, and the group size enters, to leading order, as a noise temperature. The reduction has three consequences. First, it subsumes the empirical single-exponential saturation law as its overdamped limit, recasting the fitted plateau, timescale, and size exponent as the fixed point, inverse stiffness, and curvature-scaling exponent of the underlying potential, and adding, through the retained inertial term, the slow-start phase the single exponential cannot represent. Second, it yields predictions tied to independently measurable quantities rather than fitted ones: group-size invariance of the deterministic trajectory with a 1/G stationary fluctuation, a sharp stability threshold in the refresh interval, and an overdamped-to-oscillatory transition. Third, it furnishes diagnostics that separate failure modes a reward curve alone conflates -- reward hacking, advantage degeneracy, policy concentration, and dynamical instability. Across three models and two group sizes, the closed-form trajectory fits training reward to R2 ≥ 0.91 and the mean trajectory is group-size invariant to leading order -- on both the reward curve and out-of-distribution transfer to eight math benchmarks -- while the within-group reward spread retains a residual G-dependence that the leading-order temperature picture does not capture.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2026.
Builds on
14 of 20 references.
References · 14
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
- 2025Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?cited by 982
- 2023MetaMath: Bootstrap Your Own Mathematical Questions for Large Language Modelscited by 735
- 2024DeepSeek LLM: Scaling Open-Source Language Models with Longtermismcited by 642
- 2024OpenMathInstruct-2: Accelerating AI for Math with Massive Open-Source Instruction Datacited by 200
- 2024GSM-Plus: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of LLMs as Mathematical Problem Solverscited by 158
- 2025Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards: GRPO's Effective Loss, Dynamics, and Success Amplificationcited by 110
- 2025What is the Alignment Objective of GRPO?cited by 23
- 2026Spurious Rewards Paradox: Mechanistically Understanding How RLVR Activates Memorization Shortcuts in LLMscited by 14
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Physical policy gradient theorem for in situ stochastic-adjoint training
- 2025Physics of Learning: A Lagrangian perspective to different learning paradigms
- 2026Prediction Is Not Physics: Learning and Evaluating Conserved Quantities in Neural Simulators
- 2025Learning at the Speed of Physics: Equilibrium Propagation on Oscillator Ising Machines
- 2026Bridging Control, Inference, Transport, and Thermodynamics: From Theory to Applications in Learning
- 2026Understanding Quantization of Optimizer States in LLM Pre-training: Dynamics of State Staleness and Effectiveness of State Resets
- 2026Physics-Guided Policy Optimization with Self-Distillation
- 2026Conservation Buys Stability and Factoring Buys Counterfactuals in Physical World Models