SFT vs. GRPO
What GRPO adds to SFT on single-turn Sokoban

Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct on 7×7 Sokoban boards, generating a complete move sequence in one response; SFT targets are BFS-optimal solutions. GRPO raised the in-distribution greedy solve rate on validation boards from 87.0% to 93.7%, against 84.7% for continued SFT at a constant learning rate; continued SFT with learning-rate decay also reached 93.7%, closing the initial gap. After the decay, GRPO showed no advantage on 2,000 new boards that no run trained on and no choice was based on: its sampling pass@1 differed from SFT with the decay by −2.3 and +0.3 percentage points across starting checkpoints (0.0 and +2.6 on validation boards), and SFT had the higher greedy solve rate and pass@16 from both. On solution lengths beyond the training range (validation boards only), GRPO showed no clear advantage. GRPO took approximately 14× as long per training step as SFT in this setup. One seed per run.


