Xiangchi Yuan, Xingjian Diao, Zheyuan Liu, Chunhui Zhang, Dachuan Shi, Kejing Xia, Zhenbang Du, Shenglong Yao 等 10 位作者
LLM post-training often optimizes multiple objectives with unequal priorities, such as correctness and reasoning efficiency. However, the widely used additive reward aggregation in RL can violate these priorities: when primary and auxiliary advantages conflict, a sufficiently large auxiliary signal can overturn the preference induced by the primary objective. We term this problem \emph{advantage priority inversion}. Although reward-level gating can protect priority more directly, it still removes potentially useful auxiliary distinctions among rollout samples that fail the primary condition. To address this trade-off, we propose Primary Advantage Policy Optimization (\textbf{PAPO}), a priority-aware advantage aggregation method that asymmetrically combines a primary and an auxiliary advantage. PAPO retains auxiliary supervision when the objectives agree and smoothly attenuates conflicting auxiliary signals, preserving the primary sign during fusion for \emph{primary-consistent ordering}. This rule applies to sequence-level advantages in GRPO and token-level advantages in actor--critic PPO. Experiments on multiple domains and models show that PAPO consistently achieves the best primary objective while maintaining best or competitive auxiliary-objective performance across both GRPO- and PPO-based optimization. \href{https://xiangchi-yuan.github.io/papo-project/}{Code is available}.
Curriculum learning (CL), which orders training data from easy to hard, has become a popular strategy for improving reasoning in large language models (LLMs). Yet prior work employs disparate difficulty metrics and training setups, leaving open fundamental questions: When does curriculum help? Which direction—forward or reverse—is better? And does the answer depend on what we measure? We address these questions through a unified offline evaluation framework that decomposes curriculum difficulty into five complementary dimensions: Problem Difficulty, Model Surprisal, Confidence Margin, Predictive Uncertainty, and Decision Variability. Through controlled post-training experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks with Llama3.1-8B, Mistral-7B, and Gemma3-4B, we find that: (i) no curriculum strategy dominates universally—the relative effectiveness of forward versus reverse CL depends jointly on model capability and task complexity; (ii) even within a single metric, samples at different difficulty levels produce distinct gains depending on task demands; and (iii) Task-aligned curricula focus on shaping the model’s final representations and generalization, whereas inner-state curricula modulate internal states such as confidence and uncertainty. Our findings challenge the notion of a universal curriculum strategy and offer actionable guidance across model and task regimes, with some metrics indicating that prioritizing decision-uncertain samples can further enhance learning outcomes.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表