Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research addresses critical reliability issues in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) by mathematically correcting for false positives and negatives inherent in automated verifier systems. By deriving lightweight backward and forward corrections, the study enables more stable training dynamics and unbiased policy updates even when verifiers are imperfect or noisy. These findings directly advance the robustness of AI agents relying on automated feedback loops for complex reasoning tasks like mathematical problem solving.
Sources coveringarXiv, AI Alignment Forum
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable yet Noisy Rewards under Imperfect Verifiers

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2510.00915v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) replaces costly human labeling with automated verifiers. To reduce verifier hacking, many RLVR systems binarize rewards to $\{0,1\}$, but imperfect verifiers inevitably introduce \emph{false negatives} (rejecting correct answers) and \emph{false positives} (accepting incorrect ones). We formalize verifier unreliability as a stochastic reward channel with asymmetric noise rates $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ -- the FP rate and the FN rate, respectively. From this abstraction we derive two lightweight corrections: (i) a \emph{backward} correction that yields an unbiased surrogate reward and thus an unbiased policy-gradient estimator in expectation, and (ii) a \emph{forward} correction that reweights score-function terms so the expected update aligns with the clean gradient direction and requires only the FN rate. We implement both as lightweight hooks in a group relative policy optimization pipeline, both corrections improve RLVR for math reasoning under synthetic and real verifier noise, with the forward variant being more stable under heavier noise. Finally, an appeals mechanism with a lightweight LLM verifier estimates the FN rate online and further improves performance.

Abstract:Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) replaces costly human labeling with automated verifiers. To reduce verifier hacking, many RLVR systems binarize rewards to $\{0,1\}$, but imperfect verifiers inevitably introduce \emph{false negatives} (rejecting correct answers) and \emph{false positives} (accepting incorrect ones). We formalize verifier unreliability as a stochastic reward channel with asymmetric noise rates $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ -- the FP rate and the FN rate, respectively. From this abstraction we derive two lightweight corrections: (i) a \emph{backward} correction that yields an unbiased surrogate reward and thus an unbiased policy-gradient estimator in expectation, and (ii) a \emph{forward} correction that reweights score-function terms so the expected update aligns with the clean gradient direction and requires only the FN rate. We implement both as lightweight hooks in a group relative policy optimization pipeline, both corrections improve RLVR for math reasoning under synthetic and real verifier noise, with the forward variant being more stable under heavier noise. Finally, an appeals mechanism with a lightweight LLM verifier estimates the FN rate online and further improves performance.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2510.00915 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2510.00915v5 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.00915 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 265 words

Related coverage