Entropy Regularization: A Free Correction to Cross-Entropy for Verified Demonstrations

Post-training large language models with reinforcement learning is bottlenecked by the reward signal. Existing approaches require either ground-truth verifiable rewards, restricting training to domains with automatic correctness checks (e.g., mathematics, code execution), or human preference labels, which are expensive to collect and prone to reward hacking. Recent label-free methods replace ground-truth verifiers with self-referential signals like majority voting or token entropy over a model's own outputs, but risk reinforcing a model's own errors. In this work we propose Cross-Model Entropy (CME), the mean log-likelihood of a generator's response under a separate verifier model, as a label-free reward signal for RL post-training. CME is continuous, training-free, and grounded in the principle that responses a verifier finds unsurprising are likely correct or high quality. Because the verifier is independent of the generator, the signal cannot be gamed through self-consistency. We integrate CME into GRPO with no other changes to the training loop, extending label-free RL to open-ended instruction following -- a regime where self-referential signals are inapplicable or poorly suited. On open-ended instruction following (UltraFeedback prompts, evaluated on AlpacaEval 2.0), CME rewards beat the untrained base in head-to-head LLM-as-Judge comparisons across four model families (Qwen, Llama, Gemma, OLMo) and three training regimes (pretrained, SFT, and instruction-tuned), with tie-adjusted win rates ranging from 52.5% to 71.4%. Code will be released upon publication.

Detecting when a language model is wrong without ground truth labels is a fundamental challenge for safe deployment. Existing approaches rely on a model's own uncertainty -- such as token entropy or confidence scores -- but these signals fail critically on the most dangerous failure mode: confident errors, where a model is wrong but certain. In this work we introduce cross-model disagreement as a correctness indicator -- a simple, training-free signal that can be dropped into existing production systems, routing pipelines, and deployment monitoring infrastructure without modification. Given a model's generated answer, cross-model disagreement computes how surprised or uncertain a second verifier model is when reading that answer via a single forward pass. No generation from the verifying model is required, and no correctness labels are needed. We instantiate this principle as Cross-Model Perplexity (CMP), which measures the verifying model's surprise at the generating model's answer tokens, and Cross-Model Entropy (CME), which measures the verifying model's uncertainty at those positions. Both CMP and CME outperform within-model uncertainty baselines across benchmarks spanning reasoning, retrieval, and mathematical problem solving (MMLU, TriviaQA, and GSM8K). On MMLU, CMP achieves a mean AUROC of 0.75 against a within-model entropy baseline of 0.59. These results establish cross-model disagreement as a practical, training-free approach to label-free correctness estimation, with direct applications in deployment monitoring, model routing, selective prediction, data filtering, and scalable oversight of production language model systems.

When post-training large language models on tasks with semi-verifiable rewards, there are many factors (training steps, base model size, training order, data quality, verifier accuracy, etc.) that practitioners must contend with to maximize model performance. Yet, it remains unclear how well verifier agreement predicts post-training performance on such tasks. In this paper, we explore this question with over 11k H100 GPU-hours, across HealthBench and PRBench tasks in medical, legal, and finance domains. Across the tested domains, Qwen3 trainees (1.7B-8B on HealthBench; 8B on PRBench), evaluation splits, and frontier LLM reference judges (which we call golden verifiers), higher verifier agreement does not consistently identify the best training verifier. Expensive verifiers need not outperform inexpensive ones, and open-weight Gemma verifiers produce strong training outcomes. We compare two low-cost choices retrospectively -- a cost-reducing choice and a balanced choice -- with estimated grading cost reductions of 98.8%-99.7% relative to the golden grading protocols and average post-training score gaps of 1-3 points from the best evaluated training verifier. These averages include larger losses in individual settings; they do not establish that verifier choices are interchangeable.