Noisy Data is Destructive to Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is widely used for post-training Large Language Models, but practical verifiers can make errors. We study how the rate and structure of reward noise affect RLVR in code generation, with a preliminary scientific-reasoning check. In multi-seed Qwen3 8B experiments on MBPP, mean validation reward over two fixed late evaluations is within 1 percentage point of the clean baseline at the tested resampled group-rollout noise rates through 20%, and within about 2 points at 30%. Confidence intervals allow larger losses; these point estimates do not establish a general tolerance threshold. We also examine full-program pass@k, four controlled noise structures, two model-based verifiers, and policy models from three families spanning 4B-9B parameters. We derive conditional advantage distributions for symmetric and asymmetric group noise, including retained format penalties, and show why clipping limits simple gradient-scaling arguments. The analysis identifies information preserved by whole-group corruption and limits on interpreting our asymmetric sweep as a precision-recall comparison. Overall, the results indicate that imperfect verification can support effective RLVR in the tested settings, while aggregate error rates alone do not characterize the learning signal.

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.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) effectively trains reasoning models that rely on abundant perfect labels, but its vulnerability to unavoidable noisy labels due to expert scarcity remains critically underexplored. In this work, we take the first step toward a systematic analysis of noisy label mechanisms in RLVR. In contrast to supervised classification, most RLVR algorithms incorporate a rollout-based condition: a label's influence on training is contingent on whether the current policy can generate rollouts that realize it, a property that naturally extends to noisy labels. Based on this observation, we distinguish two types of noise: inactive noisy labels, which reduce data efficiency, and active noisy labels, which are reinforced and risk skewing the model toward incorrect distributions. From experiments on training with noisy samples, we identify an Early Correctness Coherence phenomenon: although noisy samples begin to lag behind in later stages, accuracy on both clean and noisy samples increases similarly in early training. Motivated by this dynamic, we propose Online Label Refinement (OLR), which progressively corrects potentially noisy labels with majority-voted answers when two conditions hold: a positive slope in the majority answer's rollout pass rate and stable historical consistency across updates, enabling gradual self-correction as the policy improves. We evaluate OLR on six in-distribution mathematical reasoning benchmarks (AIME24/25, AMC, MATH-500, Minerva, and Olympiad) and three out-of-distribution tasks (ARC-c, GPQA-diamond, and MMLU-pro). Across noise ratios from 0.1 to 0.9, OLR consistently improves robustness under both inactive and active noisy-label settings, achieving average gains of 3.6% to 3.9% on in-distribution benchmarks and 3.3% to 4.6% on out-of-distribution evaluations.