arXiv Machine Learning

A Pre-Registered Causal Partition of Self-Consistency Elicitation and Reward Design in RLVR

arXiv:2606. 05932v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) improves reasoning even when the reward signal is spurious -- assigning credit to the group-plurality answer rather than a ground-truth verifier.

arXiv AI
Jun 30

SEVA: Self-Evolving Verification Agent with Process Reward for Fact Attribution

arXiv:2606. 29713v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hallucination is the reliability bottleneck for LLM-based agents, and fact attribution verifiers are the last line of defense -- yet today's verifiers emit only opaque binary labels, leaving agents unable to self-correct and operators unable to audit.

By Aojie Yuan, Yi Nian, Haiyue Zhang, Zijian Su, Yue Zhao
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 14

Resist and Update: Counterfactual Report Coordinates for Incentive-Compatible LLMs

Aligned language models routinely misreport under non-evidential incentive pressure: they agree with a confident user or overstate certainty even when their internal belief is unchanged. We cast this as a failure of internal incentive-compatibility (IC) and present a method for learning and certifying counterfactual report mediators that hold a model's reports to a causal contract: invariant to forbidden influences (pressure, prestige, restyling) and responsive to licensed ones (genuine evidence).

arXiv AI
Jun 18

Learning from Own Solutions: Self-Conditioned Credit Assignment for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards

arXiv:2606. 18810v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has driven substantial progress in training LLMs for reasoning tasks, but representative methods such as GRPO assign uniform credit across all tokens, wasting gradient on routine tokens while under-crediting pivotal reasoning steps.

By Yingyu Shan, Yuhang Guo, Zihao Cheng, Zeming Liu, Xiangrong Zhu, Xinyi Wang, Jiashu Yao, Wei Lin, Hongru Wang, Heyan Huang
arXiv AI
Jul 14

LLMs as a Jury: Cross-Model Consensus Can Outperform Process Reward Models for LLM Reasoning

arXiv:2607. 10139v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the correct answer from a pool of candidate reasoning chains is the engine of test-time scaling, yet the standard selectors each carry a cost: self-consistency inherits the errors of the single model it resamples, and trained reward models need labeled data and transfer poorly off-distribution.

By Ning Liu