# ECPO: Evidence-Coupled Policy Optimization for Evidence-Certified Candidate Ranking

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.21993 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.21993/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [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)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Investigative Simulation: Towards Utilizing Graph Pattern Matching for Investigative Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.01760/) (2016)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Ranking systems used in decision-support settings should not only order candidates but also expose evidence that can be independently checked. We study evidence-certified candidate ranking: given an intent_id, a predefined plan skeleton, a window-local candidate roster, and text-derived candidate trajectories with span provenance, a system must output a Top-K list together with doc_id:span evidence certificates whose cited spans are sufficient to recover the decision. We instantiate this task on MAVEN-ERE and RAMS with fixed upstream extraction, window-local randomized candidate identifiers, skeleton-aligned trajectory supervision, hard negatives, and audit references. We introduce Evidence-Coupled Policy Optimization (ECPO), a listwise policy-optimization objective whose action is the joint object of ranking and evidence certificate. ECPO first learns an interpretable trajectory reward from skeleton alignment, argument consistency, and optional graph features; it then optimizes a constrained policy with three coupled rewards: listwise ranking utility, span-level certificate validity, and an evidence-cycle reward computed by a label-free deterministic verifier that reconstructs candidate support from claim-stripped cited spans. This reframes the goal from maximizing ordinary NDCG alone to maximizing CertNDCG and decision-evidence coupling. The evaluation compares ECPO against zero-shot, SFT, and GRPO policies, RM-only scoring with deterministic evidence attachment, grammar/JSON-constrained decoding, validator retry, best-of-N RM selection, and post-hoc evidence rationalization under closed-roster, predicted-roster, and hybrid-roster settings.