Daily Papers

Equivariance theory predicts that an architectural symmetry prior reduces sample complexity by a factor of |G|; this is widely cited but rarely measured as a scaling law with controls that separate the prior from its confounds. On a controlled C_n-symmetric task, we report three findings. First, a wrong-group control with identical orbit size and matched compute is worse than no constraint (joint pairwise CI [+0.79, +3.26] excludes zero, robust across estimators); misaligned constraint is actively harmful, not merely unhelpful. Second, an augmentation baseline equipped with test-time orbit averaging matches the equivariant model exactly -- bit-identical per-epoch validation curves across matched cells -- so the architecture-vs-augmentation gap is conditional on asymmetric test-time computation, not unconditional. Third, the relative exchange rate beta_diff = 1.28 is consistent in sign and order of magnitude with the theoretical 1.0 (single-level CI [+0.92, +2.05]); the more conservative two-level bootstrap (seeds x group sizes) widens this to [-0.63, +1.72], including zero, and a finer-N replication on a sqrt(2)-spaced grid is inconclusive (point estimate -0.82). The methodological contributions -- the relative-rate estimator that cancels the shared-difficulty confound, the wrong-group control, and a pre-specified failure taxonomy -- transfer to any inductive bias whose strength can be parameterised. Honest scoping: the primary estimator beta_diff was adopted post-hoc after the initial analysis revealed a positive-slope identifiability problem; the design was never externally pre-registered; and the headline number rests on an OLS slope over seven group sizes on a coarse N grid. This is an exploratory study, not a confirmatory measurement; the wrong-group result is the cleanest finding and the one we report with the most confidence. A registered replication on fresh seeds is future work.

Decision models support routing, guardrails, and output verification in LLM systems. However, item accuracy alone cannot establish whether models make correct decisions across controlled variations or assign reliable confidence to their predictions. We introduce DecisionPivot, a diagnostic benchmark comprising 48 tasks and 40,033 items across seven decision roles. Its core track contains 7,800 items from 13 generated task families, organized into contrast groups with computed answers verified by independently implemented solvers. The complementary reference track contains 32,233 items from 35 public test sets, preserving their original evaluation metrics. We evaluate 40 decision models and 14 general models using documented, model-specific protocols, assessing item and contrast-group accuracy, probability ordering, calibration, and empirical selective coverage. Our results reveal substantial differences obscured by aggregate scores: two 27B models separated by only 2.6 points on the reference track achieve contrast-group accuracies of 70.1% and 44.2%. Across 2,400 binary contrast pairs, Perplexity Decider correctly ranks the positive member above the negative member in 92.3% of pairs but answers both members correctly in only 74.1%, exposing a gap between probability ordering and decision correctness. Models with similar item accuracy also differ in the reliability of their high-confidence predictions. On a separate 1,296-item subset, GLM-5.3 achieves 93.5\% contrast-group accuracy at a higher reasoning setting, compared with 81.5% at its lowest effort. By linking errors to pivotal details and difficulty levels, DecisionPivot provides fine-grained diagnostics of decision failures that aggregate evaluation alone cannot reveal.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is commonly based on group sampling to estimate advantages and stabilize policy updates. In practice, large group sizes are not feasible due to computational limits, which biases learning toward trajectories that are already likely. Smaller groups often miss rare-correct trajectories while still containing mixed rewards, concentrating probability on common solutions. We derive the probability that updates miss rare-correct modes as a function of group size, showing non-monotonic behavior, and characterize how updates redistribute mass within the correct set, revealing that unsampled-correct mass can shrink even as total correct mass grows. Motivated by this analysis, we propose a difficulty-aware advantage scaling coefficient, inspired by Focal loss, that down-weights updates on high-success prompts. The lightweight modification can be directly integrated into any group-relative RLVR algorithm such as GRPO, DAPO, and CISPO. On Qwen2.5-7B across in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks, our method improves pass@256 from 64.1 rightarrow 70.3 (GRPO), 69.3 rightarrow 72.5 (DAPO), and 73.2 rightarrow 76.8 (CISPO), while preserving or improving pass@1, without increasing group size or computational cost.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has demonstrated significant success in enhancing reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs). One of the most widely used RL methods is Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO)~Shao-2024-Deepseekmath, known for its memory efficiency and success in training DeepSeek-R1~Guo-2025-Deepseek. However, GRPO stalls when all sampled responses in a group are incorrect -- referred to as an all-negative-sample group -- as it fails to update the policy, hindering learning progress. The contributions of this paper are two-fold. First, we propose a simple yet effective framework that introduces response diversity within all-negative-sample groups in GRPO using AI feedback. We also provide a theoretical analysis, via a stylized model, showing how this diversification improves learning dynamics. Second, we empirically validate our approach, showing the improved performance across various model sizes (7B, 14B, 32B) in both offline and online learning settings with 10 benchmarks, including base and distilled variants. Our findings highlight that learning from all-negative-sample groups is not only feasible but beneficial, advancing recent insights from Xiong-2025-Minimalist.

Three of the most popular methods for training language models to reason look like three different tricks. They are not. All three adjust a single number: standard deviation, reflecting how much a prompt's sampled answers disagree. When such a model is trained, it answers each problem many times, and an automatic checker marks every answer right or wrong. The standard deviation of those marks measures the disagreement: largest when the answers split evenly between right and wrong, and zero when they all agree. Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) divides by this number, GRPO Done Right (Dr. GRPO) drops the division, and Decoupled Clip and Dynamic Sampling Policy Optimization (DAPO) discards the groups where it is zero. Each is presented as its own fix, yet this paper proves they are three settings of one dial. That dial is not cosmetic: for right-or-wrong rewards, the disagreement is exactly the size of the training update, the group-standard-deviation identity. A split group teaches the most, while a unanimous group teaches nothing and falls silent. The same result says which problems deserve the most weight and how many tries each one needs. This paper confirms the intuition on a large real difficulty dataset (Big-Math) and in a controlled training run. What looks like a harmless normalization step is the dial that decides where learning happens and how strongly.