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

Abstract

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.