# Aletheia: What Makes RLVR For Code Verifiers Tick?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12186 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.12186/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 122 of its 142 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Jan 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 122)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.15556/) (2022)
- [DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14476/) (2025)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCode](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.07814/) (2022)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [RULER: What's the Real Context Size of Your Long-Context Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.06654/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.05176/) (2025)
- [Kimi k1.5: Scaling Reinforcement Learning with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12599/) (2025)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15124/) (2024)
- [Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05128/) (2023)
- [Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13837/) (2025)
- [On-Policy Distillation of Language Models: Learning from Self-Generated Mistakes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13649/) (2023)
- [Group Sequence Policy Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18071/) (2025)
- [RAFT: Reward rAnked FineTuning for Generative Foundation Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06767/) (2023)
- [MTEB: Massive Text Embedding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.07316/) (2022)
- [BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15877/) (2024)
- [FlashAttention-3: Fast and Accurate Attention with Asynchrony and Low-precision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.08608/) (2024)
- [Process Reinforcement through Implicit Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01456/) (2025)
- [Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08998/) (2023)
- [RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13787/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Learning to Foresee: Unveiling the Unlocking Efficiency of On-Policy Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.11739/) (2026)
- [Low-rank Optimization Trajectories Modeling for LLM RLVR Acceleration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.11446/) (2026)
- [Agentic Game Development as a Verifiable Trajectory Data Engine for Scaling World Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.25518/) (2026)
- [Themis: Training Robust Multilingual Code Reward Models for Flexible Multi-Criteria Scoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.00754/) (2026)
- [Parameter Exploration for RLVR via Variational Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.09805/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-domain thinking verifiers trained via Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) are a cornerstone of modern post-training. However, their adoption in code generation has lagged behind that of execution feedback due to the prohibitive costs of the full RLVR pipeline. In this work, we ablate three primary choices along the performance-cost trade-off in RLVR: intermediate thinking traces, learning from negative samples, and on-policy training. We introduce Aletheia, a controlled, execution-grounded testbed to facilitate a decontaminated analysis of code verifier training recipes across disparate model sizes and covariate shifts across two common verifier application scenarios. Our analysis reveals that the optimal training recipe is scale-dependent: on-policy learning is the primary performance driver for small verifiers, whereas the thinking budget becomes the most vital factor at larger scales. Negative samples play a key role in stabilizing training at large sizes. They have a constant impact on top-1 selection, but are increasingly important for ranking performance as size increases. Our Pareto optimality analysis demonstrates that eliminating on-policy training at larger model scales could yield a verifier that performs comparably to the full RLVR recipe. Furthermore, we find that eschewing thinking traces is a compute-efficient strategy at lower budgets, offering a strong trade-off between training cost and verifier accuracy. We validate our findings across a Best-of-N deployment setting and two external reward model benchmarks, demonstrating that our findings generalize beyond the controlled testbed. Ultimately, our work offers empirical guidance toward training cost-efficient code verifiers and takes a step toward their wider adoption in post-training pipelines for code.