Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source3 min read

Delay, Plateau, or Collapse: Evaluating the Impact of Systematic Verification Error on RLVR

Summary

This study examines the impact of systematic verification errors in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR). Controlled experiments on arithmetic tasks show that systematic false negatives behave like random noise, while systematic false positives can cause sub-optimal plateaus or performance collapse. The results challenge prior assumptions that errors only slow training, emphasizing the need to understand verifier quality beyond sample-level error rates.

SourcearXiv Machine LearningAuthor: Kazuki Egashira, Mark Vero, Jasper Dekoninck, Florian E. Dorner, Robin Staab, Martin Vechev
Delay, Plateau, or Collapse: Evaluating the Impact of Systematic Verification Error on RLVR
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[2605.02909] Delay, Plateau, or Collapse: Evaluating the Impact of Systematic Verification Error on RLVR

Skip to main content

Learn about arXiv becoming an independent nonprofit.

We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors. Donate

> cs > arXiv:2605.02909

Help | Advanced Search

All fields Title Author Abstract Comments Journal reference ACM classification MSC classification Report number arXiv identifier DOI ORCID arXiv author ID Help pages Full text

Search

GO

quick links

Login

Help Pages

About

-->

Computer Science > Machine Learning

arXiv:2605.02909 (cs)

[Submitted on 6 Apr 2026]

Title:Delay, Plateau, or Collapse: Evaluating the Impact of Systematic Verification Error on RLVR

Authors:Kazuki Egashira, Mark Vero, Jasper Dekoninck, Florian E. Dorner, Robin Staab, Martin Vechev

View a PDF of the paper titled Delay, Plateau, or Collapse: Evaluating the Impact of Systematic Verification Error on RLVR, by Kazuki Egashira and 5 other authors

View PDF

Abstract:Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become a powerful approach for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). While RLVR is designed for tasks with verifiable ground-truth answers, real-world verifiers (e.g., static code checkers) can introduce errors into the reward signal. Prior analyses have largely treated such errors as random and independent across samples, concluding that errors merely slow training with limited effect on final performance. However, practical verifiers tend to exhibit systematic errors. This introduces a risk of models learning unwanted consistent behavior from a structurally incorrect reward signal. In this work, we study the impact of such systematic verification errors on RLVR. Through controlled experiments on arithmetic tasks, we show that systematic false negatives lead to similar effects as random noise. On the other hand, systematic false positives can cause a wide range of behaviors from sub-optimal plateaus to performance collapse. Crucially, these outcomes are not determined by the overall error rate but by the specific pattern of introduced errors, making pre-hoc mitigation difficult. Our results show that, in contrast to prior conclusions, realistic verification errors can critically shape RLVR outcomes and that verifier quality has to be understood beyond its sample-level error rate.

Subjects:

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

Cite as: arXiv:2605.02909 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2605.02909v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.02909

Focus to learn more

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Kazuki Egashira [view email] [v1] Mon, 6 Apr 2026 15:02:52 UTC (2,056 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Delay, Plateau, or Collapse: Evaluating the Impact of Systematic Verification Error on RLVR, by Kazuki Egashira and 5 other authors

View PDF

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.LG

new | recent | 2026-05

Change to browse by:

cs cs.AI

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×

loading...

Data provided by:

Bookmark

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

IArxiv recommender toggle

IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

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.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

About

Help

contact arXivClick here to contact arXiv Contact

subscribe to arXiv mailingsClick here to subscribe Subscribe

Copyright

Privacy Policy

Web Accessibility Assistance

arXiv Operational Status

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • Systematic false negatives in RLVR have similar effects to random noise, only slowing training.
  • Systematic false positives can lead to sub-optimal plateaus or performance collapse.
  • The specific pattern of errors, not the overall error rate, determines outcomes.
  • Verifier quality must be evaluated beyond sample-level error rates.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.