Quantifying Empirical Compute-Supervision Tradeoffs in RLVR

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) enhances the reasoning of large language models (LLMs), but standard RLVR often depends on human-annotated answers or carefully curated reward specifications. In machine-checkable domains, label-free alternatives such as majority voting or LLM-as-a-judge remove annotation cost but can introduce false positives that destabilize training. We introduce JURY-RL, a label-free RLVR framework that decouples answer proposal from reward disposal: votes from model rollouts propose a candidate answer, and a formal verifier determines whether that candidate can receive positive reward. Concretely, only rollouts matching the plurality-voted answer are rewarded when that answer is successfully verified in Lean. When verification is inconclusive, we invoke ResZero (Residual-Zero), a fallback reward that discards the unverified plurality proposal and redistributes a zero-mean, variance-preserving signal over the residual answers. This design maintains a stable optimization gradient without reinforcing unverifiable consensus. Across three backbone models trained on mathematical data, JURY-RL consistently outperforms other label-free baselines on mathematical reasoning benchmarks and transfers competitively to code generation and general benchmarks. It attains pass@1 performance comparable to supervised ground-truth training, with superior generalization demonstrated by higher pass@k and response diversity.

Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has improved language models in domains such as mathematics and code, where correctness can be checked automatically. However, many important tasks are only partially verifiable: prompts contain multiple requirements, responses may satisfy some but not all of them, or no single reference answer might exist. We introduce Soft-RLVR, a framework for reinforcement learning from decomposed, learned verification signals. Soft-RLVR converts each prompt into a checklist of atomic requirements, scores candidate responses item by item with an LLM verifier, and trains on the resulting soft reward. Checklist-based rewards turn sparse pass/fail supervision into a denser partial-credit signal, but they also introduce a tradeoff: averaging item-level judgments can reduce verifier noise, while partial credit can reward incomplete responses. We formalize this tradeoff and identify conditions under which checklist-based verification gives a more reliable RL training signal than holistic verification. We further introduce Soft-SVeRL, a self-verifying variant of Soft-RLVR in which the policy also acts as the verifier. We show that self-verification is prone to reward inflation from overly permissive self-judgments, and that explicit stabilization is needed to prevent this collapse. In a controlled instruction-following setting with rule-based ground-truth evaluation, checklist-based Soft-RLVR improves IFEval by up to 11.1 points using only learned verifier rewards. Our experiments further show that verifier quality and checklist quality both affect downstream RL outcomes, and that explicit stabilization is essential for effective self-verification.

Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) on chain-of-thought reasoning has become a standard part of language model post-training recipes. A common assumption is that the reasoning chains trained through RLVR reliably represent how a model gets to its answer. In this paper, we develop two metrics for critically examining this assumption: Causal Importance of Reasoning (CIR), which measures the cumulative effect of reasoning tokens on the final answer, and Sufficiency of Reasoning (SR), which measures whether a verifier can arrive at an unambiguous answer based on the reasoning alone. Through experiments with the Qwen2.5 model series and ReasoningGym tasks, we find that: (1) while RLVR does improve task accuracy, it does not reliably improve CIR or SR, calling the role of reasoning in model performance into question; (2) a small amount of SFT before RLVR can be a remedy for low CIR and SR; and (3) CIR and SR can be improved even without SFT by applying auxiliary CIR/SR rewards on top of the outcome-based reward. This joint reward matches the accuracy of RLVR while also leading to causally important and sufficient reasoning. These results show that RLVR does not always lead models to rely on reasoning in the way that is commonly thought, but this issue can be remedied with simple modifications to the post-training procedure.