A Pre-Registered Causal Partition of Self-Consistency Elicitation and Reward Design in RLVR

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) spends most of its compute generating groups of long reasoning trajectories. Recent allocators reduce this cost by assigning budgets to prompts, rollouts, or tokens according to a pointwise notion of difficulty or utility. We identify a statistical mismatch: the unclipped leave-one-out group-relative score gradient is not a sum of independent point contributions, but a second-order U-statistic over pairs of rollouts. Completing one rollout therefore reveals contrast with every other completed rollout, and adaptive endpoint selection changes which pair terms are observable. We introduce PAIR (Pairwise-Aware Inclusion Reweighting), which treats short rollout prefixes as vertices and pair-gradient terms as edges of a contrast graph. A prefix-only predictor estimates correctness and remaining token cost; a convex design chooses positive continuation probabilities under an expected suffix-token budget; and each edge induced by completed vertices is inverse-weighted by its logged joint inclusion probability. Under conditionally independent on-policy rollouts and an unclipped, unstandardized objective, the resulting estimator is design-unbiased for the complete candidate-pair gradient. Across compute-matched RLVR runs on Qwen3-1.7B/4B, PAIR improves average accuracy by +1.2 and +1.4 over the strongest pointwise allocator while using 51% and 52% fewer generated tokens than full-group GRPO. A frozen-population estimator audit confirms that unweighted adaptive selection is biased, whereas pair-inclusion correction recovers the complete-pair target at matched suffix cost.

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.

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.