arXiv:2610.19525v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Verifiable instruction-following benchmarks emphasize output-constraint satisfaction but can overlook whether responses meaningfully answer the underly...
By Sangyeon Yoon, Wooseok Seo, Hamish Ivison, Hyesoo Hong, Donghoon Kim, Wonjun Kang, Albert No, Jaehyung Kim
arXiv:2607. 04412v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) for non-verifiable instruction following increasingly relies on LLM judges with prompt-specific rubrics as reward signals.
By Yujin Kim, Namgyu Ho, Sangmin Hwang, Joonkee Kim, Yongjin Yang, Sangmin Bae, Seungone Kim, Jaehun Jung, Se-Young Yun, Hwanjun Song
arXiv:2602.13551v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Reward models (RMs) play a central role throughout the language model (LM) pipeline, particularly in non-verifiable domains. However, the dominant...
By Yike Wang, Faeze Brahman, Shangbin Feng, Teng Xiao, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Yulia Tsvetkov
arXiv:2511. 04694v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As large language model (LLM) based systems take on high-stakes roles in real-world decision-making, they must reconcile competing instructions from multiple sources within a single prompt context.
By Zishuo Zheng, Vidhisha Balachandran, Chan Young Park, Faeze Brahman, Sachin Kumar
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
The paper introduces Verifiable Process Rewards (VPR), a framework that uses symbolic or algorithmic task-solving oracles as action-level verifiers to provide dense rewards for intermediate actions in agentic reasoning tasks. VPR is applied to Sokoban, Sudoku, and Minesweeper, and improves policy performance over outcome-reward baselines. The authors also demonstrate VPR’s effectiveness in a tool‑use benchmark, highlighting its reliance on reliable task oracles and the difficulty of extending it to less structured environments.
By Huining Yuan, Zelai Xu, Huaijie Wang, Xiangmin Yi, Jiaxuan Gao, Xiao-Ping Zhang, Yu Wang, Chao Yu, Yi Wu
The paper introduces Gradient Fingerprint (GRIFT), a technique that uses a model’s internal gradient computations to detect reward hacking in reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. GRIFT compresses gradients of a chain-of-thought (CoT) conditioned on a prompt into a compact representation, which is then used to assess whether the CoT reflects reward hacking. Experiments on math, code, and logical reasoning benchmarks show GRIFT outperforms baselines by over 25% and, when integrated into a rejection fine‑tuning pipeline, reduces reward hacking while improving task performance.
By Songtao Wang, Quang Hieu Pham, Fangcong Yin, Xinpeng Wang, Jocelyn Qiaochu Chen, Greg Durrett, Xi Ye
arXiv:2607. 04332v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In this paper, we consider the setting where large language models (LLMs) are trained using reinforcement learning (RL) to simultaneously improve reasoning accuracy and verbalize its confidence.
By Chee Heng Tan, Zhuoyi Lin, Mehul Motani, Wee Sun Lee
arXiv:2606. 26300v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A classical intuition holds that verifying a solution is easier than producing one.
By Binghai Wang, Chenlong Zhang, Dayiheng Liu, Jiajun Zhang, Jiawei Chen, Mouxiang Chen, Rongyao Fang, Siyuan Zhang, Xuwu Wang, Yuheng Jing, Zeyao Ma, Zeyu Cui
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:2606. 04923v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Rubric-based reinforcement learning (RL) uses an LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) to score model outputs according to rubrics as rewards.
By Xuekang Wang, Zhuoyuan Hao, Shuo Hou, Hao Peng, Juanzi Li, Xiaozhi Wang
arXiv:2602. 09305v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate transformative potential, yet their reasoning remains inconsistent and unreliable.
By Pei-Chi Pan, Yingbin Liang, Sen Lin