Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) has significantly advanced the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs), particularly in their mathemat- ical reasoning performance. However, GRPO and related entropy regularization methods still struggle with token-level sparse-rewards, which is an inherent challenge in chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. These approaches often rely on undifferentiated token-level entropy regu- larization, which easily leads to entropy collapse or model degradation under sparse token rewards. In this work, we propose TEPO, a novel token-level framework that (1) leverages sequence-level likelihood to link group-level rewards with individual tokens via token-level aggregation, and (2) introduces a token-level KL-Divergence mask constraint that targets tokens with positive advantages and decreasing entropy to mitigate abrupt policy updates. Experiments demonstrate that TEPO not only achieves state-of-the-art performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks but also markedly enhances training stability, reducing convergence time by 50% compared with GRPO/DAPO.

Safety alignment in Large Language Models (LLMs) inherently presents a multi-objective optimization conflict, often accompanied by an unintended degradation of general capabilities. Existing mitigation strategies typically rely on global gradient geometry to resolve these conflicts, yet they overlook Modular Heterogeneity within Transformers, specifically that the functional sensitivity and degree of conflict vary substantially across different attention heads. Such global approaches impose uniform update rules across all parameters, often resulting in suboptimal trade-offs by indiscriminately updating utility sensitive heads that exhibit intense gradient conflicts. To address this limitation, we propose Conflict-Aware Sparse Tuning (CAST), a framework that integrates head-level diagnosis with sparse fine-tuning. CAST first constructs a pre-alignment conflict map by synthesizing Optimization Conflict and Functional Sensitivity, which then guides the selective update of parameters. Experiments reveal that alignment conflicts in LLMs are not uniformly distributed. We find that the drop in general capabilities mainly comes from updating a small group of “high-conflict” heads. By simply skipping these heads during training, we significantly reduce this loss without compromising safety, offering an interpretable and parameter-efficient approach to improving the safety-utility trade-off.