DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale
Test-time scaling such as OpenAI’s o1 [1] and DeepSeek’s R1 [2] brings a profound paradigm shift to Large Language Models (LLMs) [3–7]. Test-time scaling enables longer Chain-of-Thought thinking and induces sophisticated reasoning behaviors, which makes the models superior in competitive math and coding tasks like AIME and Codeforces.
The central technique driving the revolution is large-scale Reinforcement Learning (RL), which elicits complex reasoning behaviors such as self-verification and iterative refinement. However, the actual algorithm and key recipe for scalable RL training remains a myth, hidden from technical reports of existing reasoning models [1, 2, 8–11]. In this paper, we reveal significant obstacles in large-scale RL training and open-source a scalable RL system with fully open-sourced algorithm, training code and dataset that provides democratized solutions with industry-level RL results.
We experiment over Qwen2.5-32B [12] as the pretrained model for RL. In our initial GRPO run, we achieved only 30 points on AIME — a performance significantly below DeepSeek’s RL (47 points). A thorough analysis reveals that the naive GRPO baseline suffers from several key issues such as entropy collapse, reward noise, and training instability. The broader community has encountered similar challenges in reproducing DeepSeek’s results [13–19] suggesting that critical training details may have been omitted in the R1 paper that are required to develop an industry-level, large-scale, and reproducible RL system.
Clip-Higher, which promotes the diversity of the system and avoids entropy collapse;
Dynamic Sampling, which improves training efficiency and stability;
Token-Level Policy Gradient Loss, which is critical in long-CoT RL scenarios;
Overlong Reward Shaping, which reduces reward noise and stabilizes training.
2.1 Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO)
PPO [21] introduces a clipped surrogate objective for policy optimization. By constraining the policy updates within a proximal region of the previous policy using clip, PPO stabilizes training and improves sample efficiency.
2.2 Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO)
Compared to PPO, GRPO eliminates the value function and estimates the advantage in a group-relative manner. For a specific question-answer pair (q, a), the behavior policy πθold samples a group of G individual responses {oi}Gi =1. Then, the advantage of the i-th response is calculated by normalizing the group-level rewards {Ri}Gi =1:
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 22
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
Can language models reliably simulate personas and predict behavior?- How do LLM user simulators track and maintain consistent goal states across multi-turn interactions?
- What makes some tasks bounded enough for reliable RL?
- Why does multi-turn RL generate orders of magnitude more tokens than single-turn?
- Does RL refine existing knowledge or discover entirely new capabilities?
- What makes software engineering environments better suited for RL than other interactive domains?
- Why does RL improve sampling efficiency but not expand capability boundaries?
- Can RL directly optimize attention distributions instead of text generation?
- What role does online RL play in scaling GUI agents?
- Can multi-turn rewards fix models that lose track midway?
- How do reward reflection signals improve LLM code iteration compared to scalar rewards?
- What makes session-aware multi-turn tracking necessary for asynchronous training?
- Can multi-turn reinforcement learning improve tool use in language models?
- Why do next-turn reward objectives fail to encourage multi-turn goal progress?
- Why do single-turn RL methods fail to generalize to multi-turn tasks?
- How does single-turn training undermine multi-turn strategic dialogue?
- What specific metrics distinguish single-turn versus multi-turn collaboration success?