Where the Verifier Fails: A Category-Level Audit of Reward Signals in RLVR

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01354v1
• Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2026 14:57:59 GMT
• Title: Where the Verifier Fails: A Category-Level Audit of Reward Signals in RLVR
• Abstract summary: Reinforcement learning with rewards (RLVR) and standard benchmark evaluation both rely on an automatic verifier that turns a free text answer into a binary reward.<n>Prior work reports that one evaluation harness accepts only about 94% of its own ground truth answers, blaming parsing.<n>We supply the decomposition. We apply metamorphic testing to the verifier rather than the model, generating certified equivalent answer variants.<n>We measure rejection per answer category across four widely used verifiers over 307,420 verdicts.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) and standard benchmark evaluation both rely on an automatic verifier that turns a free text answer into a binary reward. Prior work reports that one evaluation harness accepts only about 94% of its own ground truth answers, blaming LaTeX parsing. That is an aggregate: it does not say which answer forms consume the error budget. We supply the decomposition. We apply metamorphic testing to the verifier rather than the model, generating certified equivalent answer variants, that is, rewrites that preserve mathematical meaning by construction, so that any rejection is a provable false negative needing no human adjudication. We then measure rejection per answer category across four widely used verifiers over 307,420 verdicts. We find three things. (1) Self validation ranges from 53.8% to 95.2% on identical inputs, a spread of 41.3 points. The published figure describes one implementation, not the task; two configurations of the same library disagree on 49.9% of pairs. (2) The residual is not spread across parsing categories but concentrated in whitespace and punctuation, which account for 93.0% of in contract failures for the default LaTeX configuration. A trailing period or newline dominates the budget. (3) Separating rejection from execution failure shows that verifiers with similar aggregate error fail for opposite reasons, and that a reference numeric cascade accepts off by one wrong answers as a step function of magnitude, from 0% below 10^4 to 100% at or above, because its relative tolerance is scale invariant.

Related papers

• Abstention Errors and Segment Support in CUAD: An Auditable Contract-Extraction Case Study [0.0]
  This paper presents a retrospective, reproducible evaluation of a fixed public RoBERTa checkpoint on CUAD's published 102-contract test split.<n>Of 30,464 returned candidate strings, 19,562 occur on questions with no annotated answer.<n>The system answers 1,335 of 2,938 such questions, a 45.4% false-positive rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T21:26:53Z)
• Admission Without Answers: Label-Free Certification and Experience Learning for LLM-Based Optimization Modeling [8.467936416935986]
  AdmitOR is an admission gate built on calibrated external behavioral evidence.<n>It is the first label-free admission mechanism designed around an explicitly calibrated false-discovery target.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-16T06:18:54Z)
• When Many Answers Are Valid, Voting Fails: Symbolic Verification for Best-of-K Causal Reasoning in LLMs [42.32694162421078]
  We introduce CALVER, a training-free symbolic verifier that scores structured traces against Pearl's causal criteria.<n>On CLEAR find-one-valid queries that admit multiple graph-valid answers, CALVER reaches 42.1% where plurality, a reward model, an LLM judge, and model confidence remain near 30%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T11:45:46Z)
• Judging Is Not Enumerating: Silent Omissions in LLM-Authored Acceptable Sets [13.85834524293015]
  We measure the capability that role assumes and find it lacking under the protocol the role is usually deployed with.<n>Models judge whether a candidate belongs far better than they author the set itself.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-02T05:00:44Z)
• Looping Is Not Reliability: State-Bound Evidence and Typed Revision Contracts for Agentic Code Repair [36.56438114281786]
  We study the gap between finding a correct patch and retaining, verifying, and submitting it.<n>We derive an evidence-bound typed loop contract and instantiate its mechanically enforceable subset in a reference implementation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T16:05:23Z)
• FormInv: A Measurement Protocol for Semantic Invariance in Mathematical Reasoning Benchmarks [0.0]
  A paraphrase-quality audit of MathCheck detected 4 semantically incorrect paraphrases in 129 groups.<n>Removing them drops GPT-4o from rank 2 to rank 4 and elevates Claude Haiku and DeepSeek V3 above it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T18:59:18Z)
• Distributional Energy-Based Models for Uncertainty-Aware Structured LLM Reasoning [40.342912574072024]
  Large Language Models produce structured outputs such as travel plans or code solutions.<n>Individual reasoning steps may appear correct while the output as a whole violates budgets, fails test cases, or contradicts earlier deductions.<n>We propose a learned quality scorer with deterministic analytical constraint penalties for verifying structured LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T17:08:27Z)
• The Verification Tax: Fundamental Limits of AI Auditing in the Rare-Error Regime [0.0]
  Most cited calibration result in deep learning -- post-temperature-scaling ECE of 0.012 on CIFAR-100 -- is below the statistical noise floor.<n>We prove this is not a failure of the experiment but a law: the minimax rate for estimating calibration error with model error rate epsilon is Theta((Lepsilon/m)2/3), and no estimator can beat it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T16:48:24Z)
• BibTeX Citation Hallucinations in Scientific Publishing Agents: Evaluation and Mitigation [34.429649156970015]
  Prior evaluations tested base models without search, which does not reflect current practice.<n>Three search-enabled frontier models generate Bib entries scored on nine fields and a six-way error taxonomy.<n>Overall accuracy is 83.6%, but only 50.9% of entries are fully correct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T16:30:58Z)
• Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable yet Noisy Rewards under Imperfect Verifiers [90.50039419576807]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) trains policies against automated verifiers to avoid costly human labeling.<n>To reduce vulnerability to verifier hacking, many RLVR systems collapse rewards to binary $0,1$ during training.<n>This choice carries a cost: it introduces textitfalse negatives (rejecting correct answers, FNs) and textitfalse positives (accepting incorrect ones, FPs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T13:56:44Z)
• TACRED Revisited: A Thorough Evaluation of the TACRED Relation Extraction Task [80.38130122127882]
  TACRED is one of the largest, most widely used crowdsourced datasets in Relation Extraction (RE) In this paper, we investigate the questions: Have we reached a performance ceiling or is there still room for improvement? We find that label errors account for 8% absolute F1 test error, and that more than 50% of the examples need to be relabeled.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T15:07:37Z)

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.