When Good Verifiers Go Bad: Silent Negative Transfer in Verifier-Guided VLM Training

Jianzhe Lin

cs.CRJun 12, 2026

When Good Verifiers Go Bad: Silent Negative Transfer in Verifier-Guided VLM Training

Authors: Jianzhe Lin

Organizations: 1MetaAI

Abstract

Verifier reliability is not portable across tasks. A verifier-guided self-DPO pipeline with genuine held-out gains on MathVista (+9.6 points on self-training data, +8.0 held out) can be harmful on MMMU. The failure is invisible from the target-task self-training signal: over six learner-verifier configurations, MMMU self-training performance still improves by +3.52 points while held-out performance drops by 1.42 points. We call this silent negative transfer: a verifier validated as useful before can still show signatures of successful self-training after its induced update stops transferring to unseen data. Downstream failure alone cannot diagnose this: poor generalization may mean the verifier induces a wrong learning direction, or that the correct direction itself does not generalize beyond the self-training distribution. We separate these effects via gradient fidelity F, the alignment between verifier-induced and correct training directions, and gradient transferability T, the alignment between correct and held-out directions, giving a conservative Safe-Transfer Margin: positive first-order held-out alignment is certified when arccos(F) + arccos(T) < pi/2. We then introduce Asymmetric Acceptance Gating (AAG), a precision-first filter selecting preference pairs by the verifier's absolute confidence in the response receiving the positive update. On MMMU, AAG raises fidelity from 0.29 to 0.42. In a same-cell analysis, the correct direction stays positively aligned with the held-out direction (T = 0.31), yet raw verification rotates the induced update to negative held-out alignment (-0.13); AAG restores positive alignment (+0.22). Across all six MMMU configurations, AAG beats raw verifier-guided training. Verifier reliability thus means not that it worked before, but that it induces the right update on the task at hand and that this update stays useful beyond the data that generated it.

Explore similar work

May 11, 2026cs.CV

Verification Mirage: Mapping the Reliability Boundary of Self-Verification in Medical VQA

Self-verification, re-invoking the same vision language model (VLM) in a fresh context to check its own generated answer, is increasingly used as a default safety layer for medical visual question answering (VQA). We argue that this practice is fundamentally unreliable. We introduce [METHOD NAME], a diagnostic framework for mapping the reliability boundary of medical VLM self-verification by decomposing verifier behavior into discrimination capability and agreement bias. Because the verifier and answer generator are capacity-coupled, the verifier can overly agree with the generator, creating a verification mirage: a regime with both high verifier error and high agreement bias, driven by false acceptance of incorrect answers. Evaluating six open-weight VLMs across five medical VQA datasets and seven medical tasks, we find that this boundary is strongly task-conditioned. Knowledge-intensive clinical tasks fall deepest into the mirage, simpler tasks are more resistant, and perceptual tasks lie in between. Verification also fails to provide an independent safety signal: logistic mixed-effects analysis shows that verifier error and agreement bias become more likely when the generator is wrong, while saliency analyses show that verifiers under-attend to image evidence relative to generators, a phenomenon we call the lazy verifier. Cross-verification reduces but does not eliminate the mirage. Moreover, when verification is reused in multi-turn actor-verifier loops, most initially wrong answers become locked in by false verification. Since our experiments use clean benchmarks, the observed reliability boundary likely underestimates failures in real clinical deployment.

Ruinan Jin, Beidi Zhao, Myeongkyun Kang +2

Medical Visual Question Answering Verifier Medical Vision-Language Models Diagnostic Benchmark Mapping

Ask PDF

May 28, 2026cs.LG

Self-Trained Verification for Training- and Test-Time Self-Improvement

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

Chen Henry Wu, Aditi Raghunathan

Self-Training Recursive Self-Improvement Refinement Scientific Discovery

Ask PDF

Apr 24, 2026cs.CL

AutoPyVerifier: Learning Compact Executable Verifiers for Large Language Model Outputs

Verification is becoming central to both reinforcement-learning-based training and inference-time control of large language models (LLMs). Yet current verifiers face a fundamental trade-off: LLM-based verifiers are expressive but hard to control and prone to error, while deterministic executable verifiers are reliable and interpretable but often limited in capability. We study the following question: given a development set of LLM outputs and labels for a target objective, such as correctness, can we automatically induce a minimal set of Python verifiers whose joint satisfaction closely matches that objective? We propose AutoPyVerifier, a framework that uses an LLM to synthesize candidate verifier functions and then refines them through search over a directed acyclic graph (DAG). By navigating the DAG, AutoPyVerifier systematically explores the space of deterministic executable verifiers and selects a compact verifier set whose joint satisfaction best approximates the target objective. Across mathematical reasoning, coding, function calling, and instruction-following benchmarks for several state-of-the-art LLMs, AutoPyVerifier improves target-objective prediction by up to 55.0 F1 points over the initial LLM-generated verifier sets. Additional analyses show that the most useful verification targets vary by benchmark and model, and that the DAG-based search shifts the learned verifier sets toward more structural and semantically grounded checks. We further show that exposing the discovered verifier set to an LLM as an external tool improves downstream accuracy by up to 17.0 points. We release our code

Pouya Pezeshkpour, Estevam Hruschka

Verifier Large Language Model Output

Ask PDF