When Good Verifiers Go Bad: Silent Negative Transfer in Verifier-Guided VLM Training
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Verifier reliability is not portable across tasks. A verifier-guided self-DPO pipeline with genuine held-out gains on MathVista (+9.6 points on self-training data, +8.0 held out) can be harmful on MMMU. The failure is invisible from the target-task self-training signal: over six learner-verifier configurations, MMMU self-training performance still improves by +3.52 points while held-out performance drops by 1.42 points. We call this silent negative transfer: a verifier validated as useful before can still show signatures of successful self-training after its induced update stops transferring to unseen data. Downstream failure alone cannot diagnose this: poor generalization may mean the verifier induces a wrong learning direction, or that the correct direction itself does not generalize beyond the self-training distribution. We separate these effects via gradient fidelity F, the alignment between verifier-induced and correct training directions, and gradient transferability T, the alignment between correct and held-out directions, giving a conservative Safe-Transfer Margin: positive first-order held-out alignment is certified when arccos(F) + arccos(T) < pi/2. We then introduce Asymmetric Acceptance Gating (AAG), a precision-first filter selecting preference pairs by the verifier's absolute confidence in the response receiving the positive update. On MMMU, AAG raises fidelity from 0.29 to 0.42. In a same-cell analysis, the correct direction stays positively aligned with the held-out direction (T = 0.31), yet raw verification rotates the induced update to negative held-out alignment (-0.13); AAG restores positive alignment (+0.22). Across all six MMMU configurations, AAG beats raw verifier-guided training. Verifier reliability thus means not that it worked before, but that it induces the right update on the task at hand and that this update stays useful beyond the data that generated it.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jun 2026.
Builds on
24 of 27 references.
References · 24
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,492
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,986
- 2023MMMU: A Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for Expert AGIcited by 2,057
- 2023MathVista: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Foundation Models in Visual Contextscited by 1,595
- 2022Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimizationcited by 1,077
- 2022STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoningcited by 913
- 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 825
- 2024Self-Rewarding Language Modelscited by 666
- 2023RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedbackcited by 617
- 2023Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Modelscited by 563
- 2024RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modelingcited by 488
- 2024Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Predictioncited by 470
12 more
- 2024Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Modelscited by 437
- 2023Beyond Human Data: Scaling Self-Training for Problem-Solving with Language Modelscited by 337
- 2025Learning to Reason without External Rewardscited by 203
- 2024Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluatorscited by 149
- 2024Provably Robust DPO: Aligning Language Models with Noisy Feedbackcited by 134
- 2024On scalable oversight with weak LLMs judging strong LLMscited by 96
- 2024Towards Robust Alignment of Language Models: Distributionally Robustifying Direct Preference Optimizationcited by 53
- 2024Self-Improving Robust Preference Optimizationcited by 19
- 2025Theoretical Modeling of Large Language Model Self-Improvement Training Dynamics Through Solver-Verifier Gapcited by 6
- 2025Why is Your Language Model a Poor Implicit Reward Model?cited by 6
- 2026Learning from Noisy Preferences: A Semi-Supervised Learning Approach to Direct Preference Optimizationcited by 4
- 2026Causally Robust Reward Learning from Reason-Augmented Preference Feedbackcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Quantifying Empirical Compute-Supervision Tradeoffs in RLVR
- 2026An Imperfect Verifier is Good Enough: Learning with Noisy Rewards
- 2026Verifier-Induced Support Reshaping in On-Policy Optimization
- 2025Scaling Test-Time Compute Without Verification or RL is Suboptimal
- 2026Teacher-Free Self-Training Amplifies but Does Not Compound: A Pass@K Crossover on a Free-Verifier Domain
- 2026Self-Trained Verification for Training- and Test-Time Self-Improvement
- 2026ReDraft, Don't Just Distill: Reference-Driven Revision for Continual VLLM Post-Training
- 2026Delay, Plateau, or Collapse: Evaluating the Impact of Systematic Verification Error on RLVR