From Reasoning Strings to Partial Orders: Verifier-Certified Rule Transport through Quotient Policy Optimization

Signals that predict whether a chain-of-thought (CoT) trace is correct are compared by AUC, but deploying one requires a threshold with a guarantee. We ask what distribution-free selective guarantees deliver for CoT verifiers at realistic calibration budgets of tens to a few hundred labelled problems, using seven open models, five verifier signals and 37,000 graded traces. The central observation is validity by abstention: an $(α,δ)$-valid procedure that issues a certificate with probability $P_{\rm fire}$ bounds the failure probability of an issued certificate only by $δ/P_{\rm fire}$, so a certificate that rarely fires can be valid and wrong every time it is used. In a simulation with known risk the standard certificate fails in at most 0.3% of calibration draws but in up to 69% of those in which it fires. A certification floor and a lattice condition for Benjamini-Hochberg conformal selection explain why certificates abstain at these budgets, and the data bear them out: the standard certificate returns nothing or a large accepted set, and an unreadable residual-stream probe buys two to three times the coverage of the readable signals, an edge a cross-fitted reconstruction cannot recover linearly from the readable features. We then give a floor-started fixed-sequence certificate, valid without monotonicity assumptions, that covers more than the Bonferroni certificate on every model-signal pair and raises coverage at the non-vacuous target $0.75π_0$ from 0.05 to 0.16, although the floor keeps absolute coverage small. Finally, a certificate cannot see what matters after deployment: under benchmark shift the error among accepted traces tracks the new task's base error, and under best-of-$n$ selection against the verifier it rises past the target while the empirical failure frequency stays below $δ$, because abstention absorbs the failures.

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.