ANCORA: Learning to Question via Manifold-Anchored Self-Play for Verifiable Reasoning

Self-improvement at scale has been a longstanding goal for reasoning models, and there are two natural places to do it: at test time, through verification-refinement (V-R) loops; and at training time, through self-training methods. Both are gated by the same bottleneck: the verifier. V-R loops stall when verifier scores inflate while accuracy stagnates, and when feedback is too generic to act on; self-training fails similarly when bad self-generated data are added to training. Better verification would unlock both, but the capability we want to train, i.e., catching self-generated errors, lacks training signal. To address this challenge, we propose self-trained verification (STV). Our key observation is that, while a model cannot catch these errors alone, it can when shown the reference solution. We turn this asymmetry into a supervision target and train the verifier to imitate a more informed version of itself. At test time, STV substantially improves V-R loops on hard problems, while alternatives (e.g., SFT, RL on verifier scores, and even meta-verifiers) do not. STV roughly doubles accuracy on hard math and lifts it 14x on scientific reasoning tasks (1.5% to 21%). At training time, we additionally train the generator using RL with STV verifier's feedback inside the V-R loop - a procedure we call verifier-in-the-loop training (ViL). Starting from an RL-converged generator, ViL yields a further 33% gain in pass@1. More notably, the generator's standalone pass@1, with no verifier at test time, climbs 30% relative past where standard RL had converged. Hence, the next frontier in reasoning on hard problems may lie in how we train for and with verification. Website: https://ar-forum.github.io/stv-webpage

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.

Self-evolving reasoning frameworks train a Challenger to generate questions exposing a Solver's weaknesses, creating adaptive curricula without human data. However, existing approaches use a single solver's sampling uncertainty as the Challenger's reward. This creates a fundamental bottleneck: as the solver grows confident on the Challenger's question distribution, all sampled answers converge identically, collapsing the reward to zero and starving the Challenger of learning signal. Critically, this single-model reward cannot distinguish genuinely easy questions from those that merely align with one solver's learned biases. We propose a multi-solver disagreement reward using a heterogeneous ensemble varying in model capacity and sampling temperature. A normalized Shannon entropy over the ensemble's per-question plurality answers explicitly rewards questions where solvers produce conflicting solutions---capturing difficulty as inter-model divergence rather than intra-model sampling variance. This richer gradient enables the Challenger to discover questions targeting true capability boundaries, producing a curriculum that forces downstream Solvers to develop robust reasoning strategies generalizing across problem types. Our approach is a drop-in reward function replacement requiring no framework modifications or additional data. Experiments with Qwen3-4B show that Solvers trained on disagreement-Challenger questions achieve +1.34 points average improvement on competition-math benchmarks (MATH-500, AMC, Olympiad), suggesting that multi-solver disagreement provides a complementary and scalable signal for curriculum generation in self-play reasoning systems.