arXiv:2609.01354v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) and standard benchmark evaluation both rely on an automatic verifier that turns a free text ans...
By Esther Xin
The paper introduces the concept of proof‑carrying cognition, aiming to close the verification gap in language‑model reasoning by using reality‑settled rewards. It presents a theoretical framework linking verifier‑gold correlation to compute‑capability trade‑offs, demonstrates that unsound verifiers degrade under best‑of‑N selection while sound verifiers improve, and proposes a new benchmark metric, Soundness‑under‑Pressure, for evaluating reality‑settled reasoning systems.
By Eshwar Reddy M, Sourav Karmakar
arXiv:2605.14040v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Trackable improvement in multimodal physics reasoning rests on a training-and-evaluation system that is itself rarely verified: the corpora a model...
By Shan Yang
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
Euston is an 8‑B parameter mathematical claim‑verification model that resists producing false derivations when presented with corrupted theorems. It was trained on 3,026 matched true/corrupted statement pairs generated by GraphSynth, a probabilistic factor‑graph generator, and fine‑tuned from DeepSeek‑R1‑8B using GRPO. On a balanced held‑out split, Euston’s balanced accuracy rose from 29.50 % to 63.75 %, and its discrimination gap improved from –0.5 % to +27.5 %, while maintaining comparable general mathematical ability and reducing response length and truncation rates.
By Zehua Cheng, Wei Dai, Jiahao Sun
arXiv:2608. 15445v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a reward is correct on every training example yet consistent with more than one goal, a model can acquire an unintended one, a failure known as goal misgeneralization.
By Suyash Maniyar, Armaan Sandhu, Abhishek Mishra
arXiv:2605. 02909v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become a powerful approach for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs).
By Kazuki Egashira, Mark Vero, Jasper Dekoninck, Florian E. Dorner, Robin Staab, Martin Vechev
arXiv:2608. 00220v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We show that on-policy reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) can improve the current objective while making successful behaviors for later objectives too rare to sample and reinforce.
By Shaohang Wei, Zikun Su, Feifan Song, Wen Luo, Wei Li, Guangyue Peng, Houfeng Wang
arXiv:2607. 05904v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training a language model against its own reference-free judgments (the premise of self-rewarding, self-play, and LLM-as-a-judge pipelines) assumes a model's verdict on a shown answer tracks correctness.
By Chenyu Zhou
arXiv:2607.09709v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Post-training a code generator against a learned judge can optimize proxy features that raise the score without improving the artifact. We study th...
By Chenyu Zhou, Qiliang Jiang, Shuning Wu, Xu Zhou
arXiv:2608.28421v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Post training a language model to reason means updating its weights. Supervised finetuning and reinforcement learning both place the acquired capab...
By Vishvesh Bhat
arXiv:2607. 20543v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) can improve one-sample accuracy while making a model worse under repeated sampling.
By Todd Zhou