Are Verifier Errors Independent Within a GRPO Group? Evidence from Qwen2.5 Rollouts

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) 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 with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a principal recipe for improving the reasoning of large language models (LLMs). It rests on the assumption that the checker scoring each response is itself correct. In practice, rule-based checkers reject correct answers in unexpected formats, unit tests accept incorrect programs, and LLM judges can be led to approve empty or adversarial responses. This work surveys 58 studies that measure, analyze, or mitigate such verifier errors. We ask what errors verifiers make, how they affect training, which mitigations work against which errors, and how the findings extend to self-generated, rubric- and judge-based, and verifier-free rewards. The evidence suggests that the structure of an error matters more than its rate. Random errors mostly slow learning, though under a fixed budget or KL regularization they also lower final accuracy. False positives that the policy can learn to trigger can cause plateaus or collapse, sometimes even with a low initial error rate. Whether a verifier wrongly rejects or accepts depends on what it checks and who built it, not on its family. Its errors shift as the policy improves, and most mitigations have been tested against only one kind of error. We compile the findings into comparison tables, reconcile apparent conflicts in the literature, and propose a reporting protocol to make future results comparable.