Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the prevalence of natural false positives in reward suites used for Reinforcement Learning with Verified Rewards (RLVR), highlighting the persistent errors that lead to consistently incorrect program acceptance. Through a preregistered causal contrast, the authors compare the performance of a leaky reward suite against a hardened version, revealing that the hardened suite significantly reduces false positives while maintaining non-inferior performance. The findings indicate that a substantial portion of rewarded outputs corresponds to genuine bugs, emphasizing the need for more robust auditing mechanisms in RLVR systems.
A staggering 47.57% of rewarded outputs in RLVR systems correspond to genuine bugs, challenging the reliability of current reward suites.
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.
