Rate or Fate? RLV$^\varepsilon$R: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Noisy Rewards
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a simple but powerful paradigm for training LLMs: sample a completion, verify it, and update. In practice, however, the verifier is almost never clean--unit tests probe only limited corner cases; human and synthetic labels are imperfect; and LLM judges (e.g., RLAIF) are noisy and can be exploited--and this problem worsens on harder domains (especially coding) where tests are sparse and increasingly model-generated. We ask a pragmatic question: does the verification noise merely slow down the learning (rate), or can it flip the outcome (fate)? To address this, we develop an analytically tractable multi-armed bandit view of RLVR dynamics, instantiated with GRPO and validated in controlled experiments. Modeling false positives and false negatives and grouping completions into recurring reasoning modes yields a replicator-style (natural-selection) flow on the probability simplex. The dynamics decouples into within-correct-mode competition and a one-dimensional evolution for the mass on incorrect modes, whose drift is determined solely by Youden's index J=TPR-FPR. This yields a sharp phase transition: when J>0, the incorrect mass is driven toward extinction (learning); when J=0, the process is neutral; and when J<0, incorrect modes amplify until they dominate (anti-learning and collapse). In the learning regime J>0, noise primarily rescales convergence time ("rate, not fate"). Experiments on verifiable programming tasks under synthetic noise reproduce the predicted J=0 boundary. Beyond noise, the framework offers a general lens for analyzing RLVR stability, convergence, and algorithmic interventions.
