Learning to Prove, Not Just to Answer: Reinforcement Learning from Formal Verification for Natural-Language Logical Reasoning

Verifiers are crucial components for enhancing modern LLMs' reasoning capability. Typicalverifiers require resource-intensive superviseddataset construction, which is costly and faceslimitations in data diversity. In this paper, wepropose LOVER, an unsupervised verifier regularized by logical rules. LOVER treats theverifier as a binary latent variable, utilizinginternal activations and enforcing three logical constraints on multiple reasoning paths:negation consistency, intra-group consistency,and inter-group consistency (grouped by thefinal answer). By incorporating logical rulesas priors, LOVER can leverage unlabeled examples and is directly compatible with any offthe-shelf LLMs. Experiments on 10 datasetsdemonstrate that LOVER significantly outperforms unsupervised baselines, achieving performance comparable to the supervised verifier(reaching its 95% level on average). The sourcecode is publicly available at https://github.com/wangxinyufighting/llm-lover.

While large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance on mathematical problems with verifiable answers, many advanced problems are proof-based and require evaluating full proofs. However, training such verifiers requires diverse and trustworthy question-proof-check (QPC) examples at scale, which are scarce. To address this challenge, we develop a human-audited, LLM-assisted data pipeline that produces large-scale QPC triplets with limited human effort. By systematically varying problem sources, generation strategies, and generator models, the pipeline creates diverse problem-proof pairs spanning multiple difficulty levels, linguistic styles, and error types. We combine multi-LLM agreement with hierarchical human auditing to obtain accurate proof-correctness labels. Using these data, we train generative proof verifiers and introduce an auxiliary fluency filter together with balanced token weighting to stabilize binary-reward long-form verification RL. Experiments show that our verifier improves proof-judgment accuracy across different proof styles and provides useful guidance for test-time selection. Overall, our results provide a practical data and training framework for natural-language proof verification.

A standard recipe for distilling the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) is to sample chains of thought from the model, keep those that reach the correct final answer, and fine-tune on the survivors. When sampling fails, a common fix shows the generator the gold answer and asks it to write a chain that reaches that answer. We show that this second step degrades the training data in a way that correctness filtering cannot catch. We run a controlled experiment that fixes the generator, the problem set, and the correctness filter, and varies only whether the chain is generated under answer-conditioning, the gold answer shown with a request to reach it. Training a strong instruction-tuned reasoning model on its own answer-conditioned chains sharply lowers its verifiable-reasoning accuracy. The loss grows with difficulty, reaching as much as about 27 points on the hardest competition problems. The mechanism is legible in the chains themselves, which rationalize backward from the shown answer instead of deriving it, with the early final-answer statement as the measurable symptom. The harm is a property of the data rather than the generator, read off unlabeled generations before any fine-tuning, ordering the penalty across eight thinking models from four families, and transferring across teacher families. A prompt ablation localizes it to the rationalize-toward instruction rather than the answer's bare visibility. The practical takeaway is to generate answer-blind, because no correctness filter can see this damage in the data.