Martin Vechev

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become a powerful approach for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). While RLVR is designed for tasks with verifiable ground-truth answers, real-world verifiers (e.g., static code checkers) can introduce errors into the reward signal. Prior analyses have largely treated such errors as random and independent across samples, concluding that errors merely slow training with limited effect on final performance. However, practical verifiers tend to exhibit systematic errors. This introduces a risk of models learning unwanted consistent behavior from a structurally incorrect reward signal. In this work, we study the impact of such systematic verification errors on RLVR. Through controlled experiments on arithmetic tasks, we show that systematic false negatives lead to similar effects as random noise. On the other hand, systematic false positives can cause a wide range of behaviors from sub-optimal plateaus to performance collapse. Crucially, these outcomes are not determined by the overall error rate but by the specific pattern of introduced errors, making pre-hoc mitigation difficult. Our results show that, in contrast to prior conclusions, realistic verification errors can critically shape RLVR outcomes and that verifier quality has to be understood beyond its sample-level error rate.

Coding agents are increasingly deployed to autonomously maintain software, including to resolve user-reported issues: a bug report comes in and the agent creates a patch to address it. However, in any real-world deployment, they will encounter stale bug reports about issues that have already been resolved. Agents should recognize this and abstain from modifying the code to avoid accumulating technical debt. To systematically evaluate whether current agents do so, we introduce FixedBench a code benchmark with 200 human-verified coding tasks in which no code changes are required, testing five recent models across four agent harnesses. We find that even state-of-the-art models fail, proposing undesirable changes (exluding tests and documentation) in $35$ to $65$% of cases. Explicit instructions to reproduce the issue before patching partially address this issue but introduce a new failure mode: when an issue is partially fixed, they abstain even though a patch would still be needed. More broadly, our results indicate that LLMs fall prey to an action bias: they choose to act even if inaction would be appropriate. To break this pattern, inaction needs to be expliclitly framed as a path to success, which highlights an overreliance on human guidance implicit in current training objectives.