TinyV: Reducing False Negatives in Verification Improves RL for LLM Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14625v2
• Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 17:49:50 GMT
• Title: TinyV: Reducing False Negatives in Verification Improves RL for LLM Reasoning
• Authors: Zhangchen Xu, Yuetai Li, Fengqing Jiang, Bhaskar Ramasubramanian, Luyao Niu, Bill Yuchen Lin, Radha Poovendran,
• Abstract summary: Reinforcement Learning (RL) has become a powerful tool for enhancing the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Yet, RL's success relies on the reliability of rewards, which are provided by verifiers.<n>In this paper, we expose and analyze a widespread problem--false negatives--where verifiers wrongly reject correct model outputs.<n>We propose tinyV, a lightweight LLM-based verifier that augments existing rule-based methods.
• Score: 11.573904453859098
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Reinforcement Learning (RL) has become a powerful tool for enhancing the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) by optimizing their policies with reward signals. Yet, RL's success relies on the reliability of rewards, which are provided by verifiers. In this paper, we expose and analyze a widespread problem--false negatives--where verifiers wrongly reject correct model outputs. Our in-depth study of the Big-Math-RL-Verified dataset reveals that over 38% of model-generated responses suffer from false negatives, where the verifier fails to recognize correct answers. We show, both empirically and theoretically, that these false negatives severely impair RL training by depriving the model of informative gradient signals and slowing convergence. To mitigate this, we propose tinyV, a lightweight LLM-based verifier that augments existing rule-based methods, which dynamically identifies potential false negatives and recovers valid responses to produce more accurate reward estimates. Across multiple math-reasoning benchmarks, integrating TinyV boosts pass rates by up to 10% and accelerates convergence relative to the baseline. Our findings highlight the critical importance of addressing verifier false negatives and offer a practical approach to improve RL-based fine-tuning of LLMs. Our code is available at https://github.com/uw-nsl/TinyV.

Related papers

• Beyond Binary Rewards: Training LMs to Reason About Their Uncertainty [59.97939500426759]
  This paper describes RLCR, an approach to training reasoning models that jointly improves accuracy and confidence estimation.<n>We show that across diverse datasets, RLCR substantially improves calibration with no loss in accuracy.<n>We also demonstrate that verbalized confidence can be leveraged at test time to improve accuracy and calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T17:56:01Z)
• Verifying the Verifiers: Unveiling Pitfalls and Potentials in Fact Verifiers [59.168391398830515]
  We evaluate 12 pre-trained LLMs and one specialized fact-verifier, using a collection of examples from 14 fact-checking benchmarks.<n>We highlight the importance of addressing annotation errors and ambiguity in datasets.<n> frontier LLMs with few-shot in-context examples, often overlooked in previous works, achieve top-tier performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T10:32:10Z)
• The Surprising Effectiveness of Negative Reinforcement in LLM Reasoning [43.310209758380886]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a promising approach for training language models (LMs)<n>We decompose the learning signal into reinforcing correct responses and penalizing incorrect ones, referred to as Positive and Negative Sample Reinforcement (PSR and NSR)<n>We show that NSR works by suppressing incorrect generations and redistributing probability mass toward other plausible candidates, guided by the model's prior beliefs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T06:10:54Z)
• Pitfalls of Rule- and Model-based Verifiers -- A Case Study on Mathematical Reasoning [26.717777746219635]
  We take mathematical reasoning as a case study and conduct a comprehensive analysis of various verifiers in both static evaluation and RL training scenarios.<n>First, we find that current open-source rule-based verifiers often fail to recognize equivalent answers presented in different formats across commonly used mathematical datasets, resulting in non-negligible false negative rates.<n>We investigate model-based verifiers as a potential solution to address these limitations.<n>While the static evaluation shows that model-based verifiers achieve significantly higher verification accuracy, further analysis and RL training results imply that they are highly susceptible to hacking, where they misclassify certain patterns
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T10:28:41Z)
• Bridging Supervised Learning and Reinforcement Learning in Math Reasoning [55.889740979706815]
  Reinforcement Learning (RL) has played a central role in the recent surge of math abilities by enabling self-improvement through binary verifier signals.<n>In this work, we propose Negative-aware Fine-Tuning (NFT) -- a supervised approach that enables LLMs to reflect on their failures and improve autonomously with no external teachers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T17:17:40Z)
• AceReason-Nemotron: Advancing Math and Code Reasoning through Reinforcement Learning [50.02117478165099]
  We show that large-scale reinforcement learning can significantly enhance the reasoning capabilities of strong, small- and mid-sized models.<n>We propose a simple yet effective approach: first training on math-only prompts, then on code-only prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T08:50:47Z)
• Unearthing Gems from Stones: Policy Optimization with Negative Sample Augmentation for LLM Reasoning [48.33401015101481]
  We propose Behavior Constrained Policy Gradient with Negative Sample Augmentation (BCPG-NSA)<n>BCPG-NSA is a fine-grained offline framework that encompasses three stages: 1) sample segmentation, 2) consensus-based step correctness assessment combining LLM and PRM judgers, and 3) policy optimization with NSA designed to effectively mine positive steps within negative samples.<n> Experimental results show that BCPG-NSA outperforms baselines on several challenging math/coding reasoning benchmarks using the same training dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T14:16:49Z)
• Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model? [67.30809748319486]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has recently demonstrated notable success in enhancing the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs)<n>This study critically examines the current state of RLVR.<n>We find that the current training setup does not elicit fundamentally new reasoning patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T17:59:56Z)
• A Minimalist Approach to LLM Reasoning: from Rejection Sampling to Reinforce [68.99924691391048]
  We revisit GRPO from a reinforce-like algorithm perspective and analyze its core components.<n>We find that a simple rejection sampling baseline, RAFT, yields competitive performance than GRPO and PPO.<n>Motivated by this insight, we propose Reinforce-Rej, a minimal extension of policy gradient that filters both entirely incorrect and entirely correct samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T16:15:02Z)
• S$^2$R: Teaching LLMs to Self-verify and Self-correct via Reinforcement Learning [51.84977135926156]
  We introduce S$2$R, an efficient framework that enhances LLM reasoning by teaching models to self-verify and self-correct during inference.<n>Our results demonstrate that Qwen2.5-math-7B achieves an accuracy improvement from 51.0% to 81.6%, outperforming models trained on an equivalent amount of long-CoT distilled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T13:40:22Z)
• Guiding Reinforcement Learning Using Uncertainty-Aware Large Language Models [1.2233495442213964]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising alternative to mitigate RL sample inefficiency and potentially replace human trainers.<n>We address this limitation by a calibrated guidance system that uses Monte Carlo Dropout to enhance LLM advice reliability.<n>We also develop a novel RL policy shaping method based on dynamic model average entropy to adjust the LLM's influence on RL policies according to guidance uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T22:00:29Z)
• VinePPO: Refining Credit Assignment in RL Training of LLMs [66.80143024475635]
  We propose VinePPO, a straightforward approach that leverages the flexibility of language environments to compute unbiased Monte Carlo-based estimates.<n>Our method consistently outperforms PPO and other baselines across MATH and GSM8K datasets in less wall-clock time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T15:49:30Z)
• RL on Incorrect Synthetic Data Scales the Efficiency of LLM Math Reasoning by Eight-Fold [41.28168368547099]
  Training on model-generated synthetic data is a promising approach for finetuning LLMs, but it remains unclear when it helps or hurts. We show that training on per-step negatives can help to unlearn spurious correlations in the positive data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:45:54Z)
• How Can LLM Guide RL? A Value-Based Approach [68.55316627400683]
  Reinforcement learning (RL) has become the de facto standard practice for sequential decision-making problems by improving future acting policies with feedback. Recent developments in large language models (LLMs) have showcased impressive capabilities in language understanding and generation, yet they fall short in exploration and self-improvement capabilities. We develop an algorithm named LINVIT that incorporates LLM guidance as a regularization factor in value-based RL, leading to significant reductions in the amount of data needed for learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T20:07:13Z)
• Improving Large Language Models via Fine-grained Reinforcement Learning with Minimum Editing Constraint [104.53687944498155]
  Reinforcement learning (RL) has been widely used in training large language models (LLMs) We propose a new RL method named RLMEC that incorporates a generative model as the reward model. Based on the generative reward model, we design the token-level RL objective for training and an imitation-based regularization for stabilizing RL process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-11T17:58:41Z)
• Scaling Relationship on Learning Mathematical Reasoning with Large Language Models [75.29595679428105]
  We investigate how the pre-training loss, supervised data amount, and augmented data amount influence the reasoning performances of a supervised LLM. We find that rejection samples from multiple models push LLaMA-7B to an accuracy of 49.3% on GSM8K which outperforms the supervised fine-tuning (SFT) accuracy of 35.9% significantly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-03T15:34:01Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.