When the Reward Suite Is Leaky: A Preregistered Causal Contrast of Natural Verifier False Positives in RLVR
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The test suites used as RLVR rewards for code have natural false positives: per-task, persistent, asymmetric errors that accept the same wrong programs every time they appear, unlike the symmetric or resampled noise assumed by existing noise-robustness analyses. We run a preregistered two-arm causal contrast on a deployed suite: GRPO on identical MBPP tasks, seeds, and compute, rewarded by the original MBPP tests (leaky) versus the MBPP+ extra tests (hardened). Two further families replicate the design under a preregistration frozen before their data existed. [C] The average held-out effect is bounded: non-inferior under a preregistered 1.5-pt margin (gap 0.20 pt, one-sided 95% upper bound 0.75 pt). [C] Rewarded false-positive mass tracks a cheap static leakiness audit computed before training (Spearman 0.80), and the registered train-side test puts the leak-stratum FP share +43.8 pt above clean tasks. [E] Auditing every rewarded FP under signed, human-adjudicated rules finds a large residual of verified genuinely wrong code: 47.57% record-weighted; both replication families reproduce a large share. The reward paid for real bugs, not merely suite artifacts. [E] Mechanism evidence is consistent with selection of pre-existing error modes rather than learned exploitation: FP incidence does not grow within our horizon, and untrained base models already produce the same wrong outputs under the leaky filter. We then turn the same instrument on the frontier judges themselves: on their own false positives they self-assess only weakly, a same-author test is unresolved, and even the highest-scoring reader we probe stays far below its score on a weaker policy's errors -- two subjects on MBPP, licensing nothing about frontier models in general. A cheap static audit locates exposure before training; hardening the reward removes the measurement inflation, though here it buys little capability.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 44 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jul 2026.
Builds on
44 of 57 references.
References · 44
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,146
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
- 2024DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligencecited by 1,154
- 2024Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Reportcited by 1,151
- 2024Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Trainingcited by 988
- 2025Why Language Models Hallucinatecited by 205
- 2025Spurious Rewards: Rethinking Training Signals in RLVRcited by 199
- 2025Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RLcited by 111
- 2025Beyond Binary Rewards: Training LMs to Reason About Their Uncertaintycited by 107
- 2024The Limits of Inference Scaling Through Resamplingcited by 51
32 more
- 2024Limits to scalable evaluation at the frontier: LLM as Judge won't beat twice the datacited by 46
- 2025Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable yet Noisy Rewards under Imperfect Verifierscited by 40
- 2026SpecBench: Measuring Reward Hacking in Long-Horizon Coding Agentscited by 25
- 2021Preregistering NLP Researchcited by 24
- 2025EvilGenie: A Reward Hacking Benchmarkcited by 24
- 2026LLMs Gaming Verifiers: RLVR can Lead to Reward Hackingcited by 24
- 2025Variation in Verification: Understanding Verification Dynamics in Large Language Modelscited by 18
- 2026Reward Hacking in Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learningcited by 18
- 2025Correctness Assessment of Code Generated by Large Language Models Using Internal Representationscited by 17
- 2026Benchmarking Reward Hack Detection in Code Environments via Contrastive Analysiscited by 15
- 2026Countdown-Code: A Testbed for Studying The Emergence and Generalization of Reward Hacking in RLVRcited by 15
- 2025Rethinking Verification for LLM Code Generation: From Generation to Testingcited by 12
- 2025Position: The Hidden Costs and Measurement Gaps of Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewardscited by 11
- 2026An Imperfect Verifier is Good Enough: Learning with Noisy Rewardscited by 11
- 2026Monitoring Emergent Reward Hacking During Generation via Internal Activationscited by 9
- 2026Hardening Agent Benchmarks with Adversarial Hacker-Fixer Loopscited by 8
- 2025Mitigating Self-Preference by Authorship Obfuscationcited by 6
- 2026The Obfuscation Atlas: Mapping Where Honesty Emerges in RLVR with Deception Probescited by 6
- 2026CodeHacker: Automated Test Case Generation for Detecting Vulnerabilities in Competitive Programming Solutionscited by 6
- 2026Delay, Plateau, or Collapse: Evaluating the Impact of Systematic Verification Error on RLVRcited by 6
- 2026The Verification Horizon: No Silver Bullet for Coding Agent Rewardscited by 6
- 2026More Convincing, Not More Correct: Self-Play Reward Hacking of Reference-Free LLM Judgescited by 6
- 2026From Rebound to Remedy: Understanding and Mitigating Reward Hacking via Representation Engineeringcited by 5
- 2026Before the Model Learns the Bug:Fuzzing RLVR Verifierscited by 5
- 2026Auditing Reward Hackability in Code RL Training Environmentscited by 3
- 2026Self-Attribution Bias: When AI Monitors Go Easy on Themselvescited by 2
- 2026Self-Preference Is Weak or Absent in Verifiable Instruction-Following Revision: A Four-Model Test Under Genuine Authorshipcited by 2
- 2026Right in the Right Way: LM Training with Verifiable Rewards and Human Demonstrationscited by 2
- 2026Compete Then Collaborate: Frontier AI Teachers Build a Verifiable Curriculum to Improve a Coding Student Beyond Imitationcited by 2
- 2026Proxy Reward Internalization and Mechanistic Exploitation: A Learned Precursor to Reward Hacking and Its Generalizationcited by 1
- 2026Can LLMs Judge Better Than They Generate? Evaluating Task Asymmetry, Mechanistic Interpretability and Transferability for In-Context QAcited by 1
- 2026The Blind Curator: How a Biased Judge Silently Disables Skill Retirement in Self-Evolving Agentscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Quantifying Empirical Compute-Supervision Tradeoffs in RLVR
- 2026Noisy Data is Destructive to Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards
- 2025HarmRLVR: Weaponizing Verifiable Rewards for Harmful LLM Alignment
- 2026Verifier Errors in RLVR: Reward Hacking, Limits of Feedback, and Selective Control
- 2026Rate or Fate? RLV^varepsilonR: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Noisy Rewards
- 2026Aletheia: What Makes RLVR For Code Verifiers Tick?
- 2026Adapter Thickets: Splitting an RLVR Budget Beats Concentrating It
- 2026When RLHF Fails: A Mechanistic Taxonomy of Reward Hacking, Collapse, and Evaluator Gaming