A Cheap Verifier is Good Enough: LLM Post-training is Robust to Erroneous Rewards

Scaling pre-training, post-training, and test-time compute have become the central paradigms for improving the capabilities of LLMs. In this work, we identify verification, the ability to determine the correctness of a solution, as a new scaling axis. To unlock this and demonstrate its effectiveness, we introduce LLM-as-a-Verifier, a general-purpose verification framework that provides fine-grained feedback for agentic tasks without requiring additional training. Unlike standard LM judges that prompt LLMs to produce discrete scores for candidate solutions, LLM-as-a-Verifier computes the expectation over the distribution of scoring token logits to generate continuous scores. This probabilistic formulation enables verification to scale along multiple dimensions: (1) score granularity, (2) repeated evaluation, and (3) criteria decomposition. In particular, we show that scaling the scoring granularity leads to better separation between positive and negative solutions, resulting in more calibrated comparisons. Moreover, scaling repeated evaluation and criteria decomposition consistently lead to additional gains in verification accuracy through variance and complexity reduction. We further introduce a cost-efficient ranking algorithm for selecting the best solution among candidates using the verifier's continuous scores. LLM-as-a-Verifier achieves state-of-the-art performance on Terminal-Bench V2 (86.5%), SWE-Bench Verified (78.2%), RoboRewardBench (87.4%), and MedAgentBench (73.3%). Beyond verification, the fine-grained signals from LLM-as-a-Verifier can also serve as a proxy for estimating task progress. We build an extension for Claude Code, enabling developers to monitor and improve their own agentic systems. Finally, we show that LLM-as-a-Verifier can provide dense feedback for RL, improving the sample efficiency of SAC and GRPO on robotics and mathematical reasoning benchmarks.

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.

Post training a language model to reason means updating its weights. Supervised finetuning and reinforcement learning both place the acquired capability inside the model where it cannot be inspected cannot be checked step by step and cannot be moved to another model. We argue that for tasks whose intermediate steps admit verification, reasoning is better placed outside the base models weights as an explicit program composed from deterministic and neural primitives. We introduce PLVR (Program Learning with Verifiable Rewards): a post training method that learns such programs directly from input-output examples. Its mechanism is symbolic backpropagation: each program layer carries a typed ontology a loss is computed at the output against ground truth and required input ontologies are propagated backward by type inference over primitive signatures: an analogue of the chain rule in which credit assignment is a derivation rather than an estimate. Where RLVR verifies a terminal outcome, PLVRs reward is a per step contract verdict dense over program structure. On LiveCodeBench v6 and Tau2Bench, 30B base models with PLVR outperform RL at matched budget by 27.8 points on average and frontier models an order of magnitude larger by 13.6 points. A single primitive library serves two benchmarks, so the marginal cost of a new task is 100 examples of program search and no new finetuning data. Replacing the loss guided search with uniform sampling over the same type admissible space at equal budget collapses the median program from 65.6 to 17.5, identifying the backward pass rather than the type system as the source of the advantage. We release the symbolic backpropagation library and a conformance checker so the method can be applied to primitive libraries other than our own.