This work proposes AutoVerifier, a residual-guided non-parametric optimization method that learns biases from recurring verifier errors and promotes them to code modules or prompt guidance only after replay validation detects no direct regressions, keeping accepted updates auditable, editable, and reusable.
Abstract
Reference-based verifiers are important for evaluating reasoning models and providing accurate outcome rewards in reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. To improve verification accuracy, prior work has explored rule-based, model-based, and tool-augmented verifiers for checking answer equivalence across diverse answer forms. However, the equivalence of answer forms such as $1+3.14$ and $1+\pi$ may depend on the question and scoring criterion. We frame such implicit assumptions as verifier inductive biases. To address this challenge, we propose AutoVerifier, a residual-guided non-parametric optimization method that learns these biases from recurring verifier errors. Specifically, AutoVerifier records these biases in rule cards and promotes them to code modules or prompt guidance only after replay validation detects no direct regressions, keeping accepted updates auditable, editable, and reusable. Experiments on four verifier benchmarks demonstrate that AutoVerifier outperforms state-of-the-art verifiers by a large margin.
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.
Scaling test-time computation can improve language-model reasoning, but uniform budgets waste computation on easy inputs, while verifier-guided refinement relies on external feedback. We introduce Self-Verifying Refinement (SVR), an oracle-free multi-turn reinforcement learning framework that learns to use self-verification as a compute-control policy. At each turn, the model produces a solution together with a discrete correctness verdict and a confidence score; it retains the current answer only when the verdict is Correct and confidence exceeds a threshold, and otherwise continues refinement using its own self-verification. Ground-truth correctness is used only to construct training rewards and is never exposed to the policy through refinement prompts or required at inference. SVR is trained with GRPO on fixed-horizon trajectories using rewards that promote solution correctness, calibration-aware self-verification, and stop-ready correct states; adaptive stopping is activated only at inference. On seven mathematical reasoning benchmarks with Qwen3.5-2B, SVR achieves a macro-average accuracy of 0.563 with only 2.99 inference turns on average. In the evaluated complete-system comparison, it exceeds standard GRPO, strong multi-turn baselines, and a fixed-budget oracle-guided score-feedback reference while requiring substantially fewer turns than fixed ten-turn inference. These results demonstrate that learned self-verification can serve as an effective internal control signal for answer retention and adaptive test-time compute allocation.
Results show that test-time compute can be more effective when used to refine sampled trajectories rather than only to sample more candidates or rely on verifier-guided selection.
Ahsan Bilal, Muhammad Ahmed Mohsin, Muhammad Umer et al.· 0 citations
It is shown that on-policy reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) can improve the current objective while making successful behaviors for later objectives too rare to sample and reinforce, and effective rewardable support is defined as successful trajectories reachable within a fixed rollout budget.
Shaohang Wei, Z.Y. Su, Feifan Song et al.· 0 citations
This work introduces StructReward, a compute-efficient framework that provides dense reinforcement signals through structured step-level reward alignment and substantially reduces the computational overhead of multimodal reinforcement learning.
This framework yields a practical pre-deployment diagnostic: estimate the oracle gap, then measure coverage, signal fidelity, and harm before investing in collaboration.
A weeklong summer workshop brought higher education faculty to campus to explore how AI and machine learning materials can be adapted for their classrooms.
