Skip to content
AI Atlas
PaperActive

Why Sample What You Can Enumerate? Exact Policy Optimization for Genomic Tool Selection

arxiv.org/abs/2609.10221

quality89

Updated 7 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026

paper_01M294GKGF7WMATB1CKXB724MD

Published
11 Sept 2026
T1 · 7 h ago
arXiv
2609.10221
T1 · 7 h ago
Category
cs.AI
T1 · 7 h ago

As of

Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.

Claim history

9 claims · 9 properties

Official pageofficial_url1

Claim history for Official page
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.10221currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Abstractabstract1

Claim history for Abstract
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
Reinforcement learning over a frozen reasoner has become a common recipe for teaching a policy which external tools to invoke. We show that this recipe becomes structurally mismatched in specialist scientific settings where the complete tool-subset space is enumerable. There, a small set of recurring computational capabilities covers the domain, so the space of tool subsets is combinatorial yet small enough to enumerate, and GRPO still estimates an action expectation from a handful of sampled rollouts. Worse, the approximation degrades as training succeeds: as the policy concentrates on preferred subsets it resamples them, sampled rewards collide, and the group-normalized advantage vanishes. On genomic reasoning the fraction of questions yielding no reward signal rises from 0.2% under a uniform reference policy to 20.8% after GRPO training. As a remedy, we introduce FGPO (Full-Group Policy Optimization), which (1) scores every tool subset and optimizes the exact action expectation, so each update sees the complete action space, and (2) precomputes the reward of each question--subset pair into an exhaustive table, removing frozen-reasoner calls from the training loop entirely. Across five frozen reasoners and three genomic benchmarks, FGPO outperforms GRPO in all 15 settings by 6.75 points on average and up to 14.20, while a standard on-demand GRPO schedule would require 2.4 times as many frozen-reasoner reward evaluations and, on GenomeQA, FGPO cuts invoked tools per question from 2.36 to 1.40.currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Arxiv announce typearxiv_announce_type1

Claim history for Arxiv announce type
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
newcurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

arXiv idarxiv_id1

Claim history for arXiv id
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
2609.10221currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Authorsauthors1

Claim history for Authors
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
Haoyue Liu, Xiaoyu Ma, Ye Chen, Zhichao Wang, Xiaoying TangcurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Categoriescategories1

Claim history for Categories
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
cs.AIcurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

PDFpdf_url1

Claim history for PDF
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.10221currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Primary categoryprimary_category1

Claim history for Primary category
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
cs.AIcurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Publishedpublished_at1

Claim history for Published
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
11 Sept 2026currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →