Esther Xin | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

Are Verifier Errors Independent Within a GRPO Group? Evidence from Qwen2.5 Rollouts

Group-based reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) scoresmultiple completions per prompt using automatic verifiers. Analysesbased on independent verifier errors may overlook dependence associatedwith shared answer formats. We investigate this dependence in24,998 groups of eight completions generated by Qwen2.5-1.5B onMATH, GSM8K, and DeepMath-103K. We estimate a pooled within-groupverifier-error correlation of 0.530 (95% confidence interval:0.500--0.560). Under an exchangeable-error model, this correspondsto a design-effect-adjusted effective sample size of 1.70 for aneight-completion group. Dependence varies substantially across answerforms: fractions, radicals, symbolic expressions, and intervals exhibitstronger clustering than unit annotations and percent signs. Replayinggroup-relative advantages across four rule-based verifier configurationsidentifies at least one advantage-sign disagreement in up to 0.83% ofgroups. Because a group is repeated sampling for one prompt, thiswithin-group clustering may reflect shared prompt difficulty as well asshared answer form, and we do not attempt to separate the two here.Unlike studies of correlated judgments across multiple evaluators, ouranalysis examines dependence across completions scored by the sameverifier. These findings motivate prompt- and answer-form-aware analysesof verifier noise rather than characterizations based solely onaggregate error rates.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

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

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.

cs.CL↗