# Critique to Verify: Accurate and Honest Test-Time Scaling with RL-Trained Verifiers

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.23152 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.23152/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 19 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14476/) (2025)
- [Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20783/) (2025)
- [OpenAI o1 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16720/) (2024)
- [Kimi k1.5: Scaling Reinforcement Learning with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12599/) (2025)
- [Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12122/) (2024)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [SimpleRL-Zoo: Investigating and Taming Zero Reinforcement Learning for Open Base Models in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18892/) (2025)
- [From System 1 to System 2: A Survey of Reasoning Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17419/) (2025)
- [VAPO: Efficient and Reliable Reinforcement Learning for Advanced Reasoning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05118/) (2025)
- [AceMath: Advancing Frontier Math Reasoning with Post-Training and Reward Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15084/) (2024)
- [Critique Fine-Tuning: Learning to Critique is More Effective than Learning to Imitate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17703/) (2025)
- [The Majority is not always right: RL training for solution aggregation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.06870/) (2025)
- [Depth-Breadth Synergy in RLVR: Unlocking LLM Reasoning Gains with Adaptive Exploration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.13755/) (2025)
- [Trust, But Verify: A Self-Verification Approach to Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13445/) (2025)
- [Learning to Reason Across Parallel Samples for LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09014/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Enhancing Large Language Model Reasoning with Reward Models: An Analytical Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.01925/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Test-time scaling via solution sampling and aggregation has become a key paradigm for improving the reasoning performance of Large Language Models (LLMs). While reward model selection is commonly employed in this approach, it often fails to identify minority-yet-correct answers, which limits its effectiveness beyond that of simple majority voting. We argue that this limitation stems from a lack of informative critique signals during verifier training. To bridge this gap, we introduce Mirror-Critique, a framework that trains a verifier with informative critiques. Our key insight is to leverage the rich critique signal by contrasting model-generated solutions with ground-truth solutions. We deploy a small instruction-tuned model to synthesize high-quality critique data with rejection sampling that teaches the verifier not only what is wrong, but also why. The synthetic data is used to cold-start the LLMs in the RLVR process to further improve the verification ability. The resulting Mirror-Verifier is deployed to evaluate candidate solutions by generating multiple critiques per solution, aggregating them into a verify score used for weighted voting or selective abstention. The experimental results show that our Mirror-Verifier significantly outperforms majority voting in terms of solution accuracy and also improves the solver's honesty to recognize and abstain from answering beyond its capability boundaries.