The paper investigates the reliability of rule- and model-based verifiers used in reinforcement learning with verifiable reward (RLVR) for mathematical reasoning. It finds that rule-based verifiers often miss equivalent answers in different formats, causing false negatives that degrade RL performance as models improve. Model-based verifiers achieve higher static accuracy but become vulnerable to reward hacking during RL, misclassifying certain response patterns as correct after fine-tuning.
By Yuzhen Huang, Weihao Zeng, Xingshan Zeng, Qi Zhu, Junxian He
arXiv:2607. 28457v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scaling test-time computation can improve language-model reasoning, but uniform budgets waste computation on easy inputs, while verifier-guided refinement relies on external feedback.
By Hongyu Chen, Liang Lin, Guangrun Wang
arXiv:2609.21492v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has been shown to improve the performance of large language models (LLMs), yet existing optimization methods largely r...
By Jingyu Hu, Shu Yang, Weiru Liu, Di Wang
arXiv:2504. 07385v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly used for question-answering (QA), relying on static, pre-annotated references for evaluation poses significant challenges in cost, scalability, and completeness.
By Sher Badshah, Ali Emami, Hassan Sajjad
arXiv:2602. 01348v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can achieve strong answer accuracy on multi-hop questions, but outcome-level rewards often leave reasoning traces weakly grounded and difficult to audit.
By Yu Liu, Wenxiao Zhang, Diandian Guo, Cong Cao, Fangfang Yuan, Qiang Sun, Yanbing Liu, Jin B. Hong, Zhiyuan Ma
arXiv:2607. 03957v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language models can reach the right normative verdict for the wrong reason.
By Xinqi Zhang
CriticGen introduces a generation‑aware evaluation framework that generates sample‑specific evaluation dimensions and scoring criteria across categories such as subjective, objective, and self‑derived constraints. These dynamic rubrics produce a score, reason, executable refinement suggestion, and a refined answer, enabling models to diagnose and target flaws in their responses. Experiments show significant gains in rubric quality, score correlation, and actionable feedback, with 73.17% of answers improved and a 93.28% non‑degradation rate.
By Huifang Du, Zecheng Zuo, Sen Wang, Chenghao Fan, Haofen Wang, Yehui Yang
arXiv:2605. 12519v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Training language models to produce both correct answers and sound reasoning remains an open challenge.
By Kyuyoung Kim, Kevin Wang, Yunfei Xie, Peiyang Xu, Peiyao Sheng, Chen Wei, Zhangyang Wang, Jinwoo Shin, Pramod Viswanath, Sewoong Oh
arXiv:2607. 10966v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce Self-Verified Reasoner (SVR-R1), a multi-turn RL framework that turns a model's own verification into a learning signal for multimodal reasoning.
By Mingyuan Wu, Jingcheng Yang, Shengyi Qian, Xudong Wang, Jize Jiang, Qifan Wang, Aashu Singh, Khoi Pham, Fei Liu, Zhaolun Su, Zhuokai Zhao, Klara Nahrstedt, Jianyu Wang, Hanchao Yu
arXiv:2603. 05659v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) and Rubrics as Rewards (RaR) have driven strong gains in domains with clear correctness signals and even in subjective domains by synthesizing evaluation criteria from ideal reference answers.
By Wisdom Ikezogwo, Mehmet Saygin Seyfioglu, Ranjay Krishna, Karim Bouyarmane
Post-training of reasoning language models is commonly driven by supervised distillation and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. Distillation often relies on chain-of-thought annotations that are expensive to obtain and may themselves be noisy, incomplete, or partially incorrect; even when the final solution is correct, an imperfect rationale can interfere with learning.
arXiv:2606. 15972v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: With large language models (LLMs) increasingly applied to mathematical reasoning, formal proof assistants such as Lean can be leveraged to verify reasoning outputs with machine-checkable rigor, enabling use cases such as answer selection in test-time scaling with K sampled candidate answers.
By Ji Feng, Zhouxing Shi