# Rate or Fate? RLV^varepsilonR: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Noisy Rewards

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04411 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.04411/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Process reward models for reasoning, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 26 of its 36 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Process reward models for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/process-reward-models-for-reasoning/)
- Deep reinforcement learning methods / [RL training of language and agent models](https://mlsanity.com/deeprl/rl-training-of-language-and-agent-models/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 26 of 26)

- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.19256/) (2024)
- [Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20783/) (2025)
- [Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13837/) (2025)
- [RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00267/) (2023)
- [Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Implicitly Incentivizes Correct Reasoning in Base LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.14245/) (2025)
- [TTRL: Test-Time Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.16084/) (2025)
- [Learning to Reason without External Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19590/) (2025)
- [Deep Think with Confidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.15260/) (2025)
- [Crossing the Reward Bridge: Expanding RL with Verifiable Rewards Across Diverse Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.23829/) (2025)
- [Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards: GRPO's Effective Loss, Dynamics, and Success Amplification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.06639/) (2025)
- [Back to Basics: Revisiting REINFORCE Style Optimization for Learning from Human Feedback in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14740/) (2024)
- [Online Difficulty Filtering for Reasoning Oriented Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.03380/) (2025)
- [AceReason-Nemotron: Advancing Math and Code Reasoning through Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.16400/) (2025)
- [Reinforcement Learning for Bandit Neural Machine Translation with Simulated Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.07402/) (2017)
- [Consistent Paths Lead to Truth: Self-Rewarding Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08745/) (2025)
- [Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable yet Noisy Rewards under Imperfect Verifiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.00915/) (2025)
- [Weight Ensembling Improves Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10478/) (2025)
- [Bandit Structured Prediction for Neural Sequence-to-Sequence Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.06497/) (2017)
- [Landscape of Thoughts: Visualizing the Reasoning Process of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.22165/) (2025)
- [Learning to Reason at the Frontier of Learnability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12272/) (2025)
- [Co-rewarding: Stable Self-supervised RL for Eliciting Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.00410/) (2025)

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

- [Finding Blind Spots in AppWorld and WorkArena Task Verifiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.09142/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a simple but powerful paradigm for training LLMs: sample a completion, verify it, and update. In practice, however, the verifier is almost never clean--unit tests probe only limited corner cases; human and synthetic labels are imperfect; and LLM judges (e.g., RLAIF) are noisy and can be exploited--and this problem worsens on harder domains (especially coding) where tests are sparse and increasingly model-generated. We ask a pragmatic question: does the verification noise merely slow down the learning (rate), or can it flip the outcome (fate)? To address this, we develop an analytically tractable multi-armed bandit view of RLVR dynamics, instantiated with GRPO and validated in controlled experiments. Modeling false positives and false negatives and grouping completions into recurring reasoning modes yields a replicator-style (natural-selection) flow on the probability simplex. The dynamics decouples into within-correct-mode competition and a one-dimensional evolution for the mass on incorrect modes, whose drift is determined solely by Youden's index J=TPR-FPR. This yields a sharp phase transition: when J>0, the incorrect mass is driven toward extinction (learning); when J=0, the process is neutral; and when J<0, incorrect modes amplify until they dominate (anti-learning and collapse). In the learning regime J>0, noise primarily rescales convergence time ("rate, not fate"). Experiments on verifiable programming tasks under synthetic noise reproduce the predicted J=0 boundary. Beyond noise, the framework offers a general lens for analyzing RLVR stability, convergence, and algorithmic interventions.