aiqbench analysis
This study investigates whether language models inadvertently learn the synthetic origin of distractor answers in RLVR datasets rather than just their correctness. The audit reveals that while surface-level artifacts are detectable, they do not significantly bias model performance under current training budgets, offering reassurance for corpus curators using this specific generation pipeline.
When a Data Artifact Isn't a Shortcut: Causal Auditing of Synthetic RLVR Corpora
arXiv:2610.00202v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Several recent pipelines build RLVR training data by masking a span of real corpus text and asking a language model to invent plausible wrong answers around it. The correct option is therefore genuine human prose; every distractor is synthetic. Correctness and provenance become entangled, and a policy could in principle learn the second instead of the first. We audit that possibility in GooseReason-0.7M. First we ask whether the asymmetry is visible at all: a classifier reading only five surface statistics (never the meaning) reaches AUROC 0.562 over 315,499 options, barely above chance. The aggregate hides something, though. Code sits at 0.416, below chance, and manual inspection explains why: code distractors turn out to be single-operator mutations of the gold answer rather than freely written alternatives, so the two classes are nearly identical by construction. Detecting a signal is not the same as showing a model uses it, so we then run an intervention. We build a paraphrase-matched control corpus, hold training-set size identical across arms, and train two policies under one fixed budget. The exploitation gap does not favour the unmodified-data arm: 0.021 against 0.027 for the control. Under our budget, in other words, a detectable artifact went unexploited. We think that dissociation, along with the domain-specific construction finding, is worth knowing for anyone curating corpora of this kind, and we release the audit as a mostly CPU-only protocol.
Abstract:Several recent pipelines build RLVR training data by masking a span of real corpus text and asking a language model to invent plausible wrong answers around it. The correct option is therefore genuine human prose; every distractor is synthetic. Correctness and provenance become entangled, and a policy could in principle learn the second instead of the first. We audit that possibility in GooseReason-0.7M. First we ask whether the asymmetry is visible at all: a classifier reading only five surface statistics (never the meaning) reaches AUROC 0.562 over 315,499 options, barely above chance. The aggregate hides something, though. Code sits at 0.416, below chance, and manual inspection explains why: code distractors turn out to be single-operator mutations of the gold answer rather than freely written alternatives, so the two classes are nearly identical by construction. Detecting a signal is not the same as showing a model uses it, so we then run an intervention. We build a paraphrase-matched control corpus, hold training-set size identical across arms, and train two policies under one fixed budget. The exploitation gap does not favour the unmodified-data arm: 0.021 against 0.027 for the control. Under our budget, in other words, a detectable artifact went unexploited. We think that dissociation, along with the domain-specific construction finding, is worth knowing for anyone curating corpora of this kind, and we release the audit as a mostly CPU-only protocol.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.00202 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.00202v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.00202 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 327 words
Related coverage

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 6, 2026
Fidelity Preference, Not Demographic Preference: A Pixel-Level Attribute-Sensitivity Audit of Image Aesthetic/Preference Scorers
arXiv · Aug 27, 2026
When Audit Quality Fails to Predict Downstream Utility: A Counterfactual Study of Synthetic-Data Selectors for Low-Resource African NLP
arXiv · Sep 17, 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026