The paper investigates whether verifier errors are independent within groups of completions generated by the Qwen2.5-1.5B model on benchmark datasets. Analyses of 24,998 groups of eight completions reveal a pooled within‑group verifier‑error correlation of 0.530, indicating significant clustering of errors. The degree of dependence varies by answer form, with fractions, radicals, symbolic expressions, and intervals showing stronger clustering than unit annotations and percent signs, and up to 0.83% of groups exhibit disagreement in advantage signs across rule‑based verifier configurations.
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...
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:2607. 02869v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving mathematical reasoning in language models.
The paper introduces Group‑Calibrated On‑Policy Distillation (GC‑OPD), a method that aligns token‑level teacher guidance with trajectory‑level verifier rewards for long‑context reasoning tasks. GC‑OPD normalizes rewards within rollout groups, uses the signed teacher‑verifier disagreement as a residual, and distributes this residual across tokens via Relative‑Advantage‑Based Credit Assignment (RACA). Experiments on five long‑context benchmarks show that GC‑OPD improves Qwen3‑4B and Qwen3‑8B checkpoints from 29.08/35.12 to 40.47/44.65, outperforming vanilla OPD and demonstrating the effectiveness of group‑relative residual calibration.
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).
The paper introduces Group-Calibrated On-Policy Distillation (GC‑OPD), a method that aligns token‑level teacher guidance with task‑level verifier rewards for long‑context reasoning. GC‑OPD normalizes verifier and OPD scores within rollout groups, uses their difference as a signed disagreement residual, and redistributes this residual across tokens via Relative‑Advantage‑Based Credit Assignment (RACA). Experiments on five long‑context benchmarks show that GC‑OPD improves Qwen3‑4B and Qwen3‑8B checkpoints from 29.08/35.12 to 40.47/44.65, outperforming vanilla OPD and demonstrating the effectiveness of group‑relative residual calibration.
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.
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.
arXiv:2607. 16451v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chat models sometimes commit to an answer and then produce reasoning that justifies it rather than deriving it -- even when the answer contradicts a task premise.
arXiv:2605.11467v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reasoning models post-hoc rationalize answers they have already committed to internally, producing chains of *reasoning theater*: deliberativ...
arXiv:2609.09075v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) trained with group relative policy optimization (GRPO), the KL-free reward-advantage term st...
arXiv:2605. 17333v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) typically samples multiple responses per prompt and assigns binary rewards based on individual correctness, yet the collective structure of the group output, specifically the distribution of errors, is largely discarded.