# Prompt Dominance and Asymmetric Verifier Costs: Empirical Ablations of GRPO at 1B Scale on GSM8K

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04928 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.04928/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reinforcement learning for reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 14 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reinforcement learning for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reinforcement-learning-for-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14476/) (2025)
- [Concrete Problems in AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.06565/) (2016)
- [Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20783/) (2025)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15124/) (2024)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [Group Sequence Policy Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18071/) (2025)
- [OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00838/) (2024)
- [Defining and Characterizing Reward Hacking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.13085/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This paper studies GRPO at 1B scale from both directions: what estimator choices do to the learning signal, and what a degraded reward signal does to what is learned. We train OLMo-2-0425-1B on GSM8K with a from-scratch implementation and measure both sides in controlled sweeps, including a verifier-quality experiment that degrades the training reward and the test-time selector identically. Four results stand out. The prompt is the first-order decision: the zero-shot prompt leaves the base model at 0.08% (its outputs are degenerate continuations, not wrong answers), so almost no group carries a gradient, and training succeeds because the 3-shot prompt reaches 18.3%. At this scale the estimator variants sit within seed noise, with Dr. GRPO ahead on both seeds. In the off-policy regime, clipping is the whole story: training on data without a clipped ratio loses 4-6 points relative to the on-policy reference, while GRPO-style clipping and GSPO recover the loss entirely. Finally, the same weak verifier is far cheaper in RL than in test-time selection: a 10%-flip verifier leaves RL's attainable gain intact (91% and 106% retained across two seeds) where selection retains 57%, and a format-only verifier leaves RL with 16-30% of its gain and selection with essentially nothing. Flip noise acts as an affine transform on the expected reward, and the group-normalized advantage with Adam's rescaling removes it exactly; the residual is a second-order variance effect that the matched-step comparison at a 30% flip rate tests.