upvote
GRPO increases the likelihood of samples that are better than average, not just the single best, and decreases that of samples that are worse than average. This method doesn't even involve an explicit likelihood, so it's a completely different mechanism.

A comparison with minibatch optimal transport is in appendix A.2 of the paper.

reply
You're right about the original GRPO proposal, but there are simplified variants that do just use best of K sampling.

GRPO (or GRPO like approaches) for diffusion/flow matching similarly can be likelihood free.

reply
Without anchoring on the group average it's hardly Group-Relative and without likelihood there's no Policy; that doesn't leave much of the original GRPO unchanged...

Do you have a particular paper in mind that does likelihood-free best-of-K but just calls it GRPO?

reply
Any of the Best of N papers that exploded in popularity after GRPO.

Likelihood is not fundamental to the spirit of GRPO, any exploratory mechanism would work.

That sequential LLMs have a step-wise probability is convenient but not critical to this approach (where rejection sampling is widely used in diffusion models).

reply
Do you have an example? Would love to read one.
reply
The relation to current RLVR methods I think is interesting, they do discuss it a bit but I would be curious to see more about this as well. Quote from the paper:

Exploration beyond Pretraining. The mode collapse XMs address during pretraining also often shows up in post-training, where RL fine-tuning is known to sharpen models onto a narrow set of behaviors [76]. Recent fixes such as pass@krewards [77] and best-of-N-aware fine-tuning [78] can be seen through our lens as Forward XM, with a verifier standing in for ground truth data. These fixes act only during post-training, though; pretraining with exploration may yield base models that capture more modes in the first place, leaving RL more to select among.

reply
That's fair.

On the other hand, Minibatch OT (optimal transport) was one of the more fundamental advancements early on in flow matching & rectified flow models.

This best of K approach effectively discards matches that would otherwise be preserved by optimal transport assignment.

I still think the authors here are too broad regarding their claimed novelty.

reply