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 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: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.
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: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.
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.
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...
arXiv:2608.20362v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a standard recipe for training large language models on mathematical reasoning, where an ans...
The paper introduces ImpossibleRubrics, a benchmark of 169 impossible tasks designed to test the robustness of language‑model‑generated rubrics as reward signals. Each task is paired with a verifiable oracle certificate that defines what constitutes an honest answer, and the benchmark includes 48 answerable controls. Experiments show that many rubric generators are exploited frequently—up to 36% on a stress cut—highlighting a significant gap in rubric quality rather than task difficulty, and that generic rubrics can be more vulnerable than tailored ones.
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.
arXiv:2606. 14629v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Verifier-driven self-DPO is a common recipe for self-improving production visual-language models.
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.