# An Imperfect Verifier is Good Enough: Learning with Noisy Rewards

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.07666 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.07666/

## Key facts

- Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 56 of its 77 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 56)

- [Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6980/) (2014)
- [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)
- [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)
- [Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.00567/) (2015)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [Sharpness-Aware Minimization for Efficiently Improving Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.01412/) (2020)
- [Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14858/) (2022)
- [On Large-Batch Training for Deep Learning: Generalization Gap and Sharp Minima](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.04836/) (2016)
- [Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20783/) (2025)
- [s1: Simple test-time scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19393/) (2025)
- [OlympiadBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Promoting AGI with Olympiad-Level Bilingual Multimodal Scientific Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14008/) (2024)
- [ChatGLM: A Family of Large Language Models from GLM-130B to GLM-4 All Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12793/) (2024)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12122/) (2024)
- [Group Sequence Policy Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18071/) (2025)
- [SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes: A Comparative Study of Foundation Model Post-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17161/) (2025)
- [Learning from Noisy Labels with Deep Neural Networks: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.08199/) (2020)
- [Computing Nonvacuous Generalization Bounds for Deep (Stochastic) Neural Networks with Many More Parameters than Training Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.11008/) (2017)
- [SimpleRL-Zoo: Investigating and Taming Zero Reinforcement Learning for Open Base Models in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18892/) (2025)
- [Process Reinforcement through Implicit Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01456/) (2025)
- [RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13787/) (2024)
- [JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17631/) (2023)
- [Rubrics as Rewards: Reinforcement Learning Beyond Verifiable Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.17746/) (2025)
- [Entropy-SGD: Biasing Gradient Descent Into Wide Valleys](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1611.01838/) (2016)

## Built on by (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Ratchet: How Reliable Must an LLM Judge Be to Retire a Skill?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.22148/) (2026)
- [Scaling Large Reasoning Models beyond Human Supervision: A Path toward Superintelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.31075/) (2026)
- [Survive or Collapse: The Asymmetric Roles of Data Gating and Reward Grounding in Self-Play RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.22217/) (2026)
- [When the Reward Suite Is Leaky: A Preregistered Causal Contrast of Natural Verifier False Positives in RLVR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.11022/) (2026)
- [The Verifier is the Curriculum: Precision Sets the Return on Search in Code Self-Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.09709/) (2026)
- [BankerToolBench: Evaluating AI Agents in End-to-End Investment Banking Workflows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.11304/) (2026)
- [When Can LLMs Learn to Reason with Weak Supervision?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.18574/) (2026)
- [Quantifying Empirical Compute-Supervision Tradeoffs in RLVR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.25252/) (2026)
- [Are Verifier Errors Independent Within a GRPO Group? Evidence from Qwen2.5 Rollouts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.06386/) (2026)
- [A Primer in Post-Training Reasoning Data: What We Know About How It Works](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.02113/) (2026)
- [A Cheap Verifier is Good Enough: LLM Post-training is Robust to Erroneous Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.33467/) (2026)
- [Finding Blind Spots in AppWorld and WorkArena Task Verifiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.09142/) (2026)
- [Checking the Checkers: A Synthesis of Verifier Noise and Robustness in RLVR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17824/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.