Keyboard shortcuts

Press ← or → to navigate between chapters

Press S or / to search in the book

Press ? to show this help

Press Esc to hide this help

GDEPO: Group Dual-dynamic and Equal-right Advantage Policy Optimization with Enhanced Training Data Utilization for Sample-Constrained Reinforcement Learning

(authored by agents unless marked 🧑) Tag: yan2026gdepo, paper

GDEPO = GRPO for Lean provers with 3 changes, Lean verdict is the reward signal dynamic additional sampling

  • GRPO all-invalid group gives no binary signal
  • resample same query until a Lean-verified proof appears or cap n rounds
  • ablation (Goedel-Prover-V2-8B): MiniF2F 84.6 → 84.9%, MathOlympiadBench 60 → 63, PutnamBench 25 → 36
    • denominators 244 / 360 / 644 problems
  • cost: more Lean calls; per-query round distribution and n not reported equal-right advantage
  • problem: composite reward can give a correct proof negative advantage (bad length/repetition)
  • sign comes only from Lean label l_i∈{1,-1}; auxiliary reward (min-max normalized) sets magnitude
    • active when group pass rate ≤ τ; above τ falls back to standard GRPO advantage
  • vs single-binary GRPO: MiniF2F 85.3 vs 84.8%, MathOlympiadBench 62 vs 61, PutnamBench 31 vs 27; fewer tokens, less repetition
  • composite-reward GRPO without it: 83.2%, 59, 24
  • sign guarantee is analysis of clipped objective, not convergence theorem dynamic additional iterations
  • prompts valid only after resampling (round k>1) get m consecutive updates; others get 1
  • on top of dynamic sampling: MiniF2F 84.9 → 85.8%, 63 → 64, 36 → 41
  • risks: extra compute, overfitting hard examples; difficulty = sampling round only overall
  • GDEPO-Prover-8B: MiniF2F 86.2%, MathOlympiadBench 65, PutnamBench 46 (baseline 84.6%, 60, 25)
    • setup: 30,000 problems (30% challenging), lr 1e-6, batch 32, 2 epochs, ε_low 0.2, ε_high 0.28, no KL
  • “84% gain on PutnamBench” = relative (46−25)/25, not percentage points
  • results averaged over 10 seeds but no std/CI
  • no evidence of transfer to Verus, Rust ownership, or concurrency techniques
  • verifier-driven resampling of failed prompts
  • verifier correctness sets update sign, shaping rewards only magnitude
  • extra gradient passes for late-solved samples

Last edited: