From Verifiable Dot to Reward Chain: Harnessing Verifiable Reference-based Rewards for Reinforcement Learning of Open-ended Generation
Yuxin Jiang, Yufei Wang, Qiyuan Zhang, Xingshan Zeng, Liangyou Li, Jierun Chen, Chaofan Tao, Haoli Bai, Lifeng Shang

TL;DR
This paper introduces RLVRR, a novel reinforcement learning approach that uses verifiable reference-based rewards for open-ended generation, improving efficiency, generalization, and output diversity in large language models.
Contribution
RLVRR is the first method to decompose rewards into content and style signals from references, enhancing open-ended generation and reasoning in large language models.
Findings
Outperforms SFT with ten times less data and better reward models
Unifies structured reasoning and open-ended generation training
Generalizes more effectively while maintaining output diversity
Abstract
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) succeeds in reasoning tasks (e.g., math and code) by checking the final verifiable answer (i.e., a verifiable dot signal). However, extending this paradigm to open-ended generation is challenging because there is no unambiguous ground truth. Relying on single-dot supervision often leads to inefficiency and reward hacking. To address these issues, we propose reinforcement learning with verifiable reference-based rewards (RLVRR). Instead of checking the final answer, RLVRR extracts an ordered linguistic signal from high-quality references (i.e, reward chain). Specifically, RLVRR decomposes rewards into two dimensions: content, which preserves deterministic core concepts (e.g., keywords), and style, which evaluates adherence to stylistic properties through LLM-based verification. In this way, RLVRR combines the exploratory strength of…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
- The paper is very well-written and easy to understand. In particular, Section 3, the pipeline diagram, and the prompts provided in the Appendix make it easy for readers to follow and grasp the details. - RLVRR’s "reward chain" bridges reasoning-style verifiability with open-ended text generation, which is a key step beyond single-dot verification. It removes dependency on trained reward models, reducing cost, reward hacking, and brittleness. - RLVRR outperforms SFT, DPO, RLHF-style, and BLEU
- One major weakness is that RLVRR captures only rule-based content and style fidelity; it may miss deeper semantic or ethical nuances that require human judgment. For example, the "content reward" relies entirely on an LLM judge, which is responsible for extracting critical keywords from the reference responses (the paper claims these keywords capture the "semantics" of the reference). However, this does not truly capture semantics for reasoning tasks like mathematical reasoning (GSM8K, MATH, O
1. The proposed method is more effective compared with competitive baselines like RM and GRM, while also efficient. 2. Experiments on both base models and instruct models show good performance of RLVRR.
1. Lacking the reward quality analysis. For example, how RLVRR achieves better results than the GRM setting that also rely on GPT-4o-mini, is it because the reward quality of RLVRR is better? 2. It requires proprietary APIs to generate key points information, which might also hinder its scalability. 3. Is RLVRR more computation efficient compared with the SFT baseline, regarding the training costs. Since SFT is much faster compared with RL which requires slow online response generation.
- Splits reward into content (reference-derived key points/keywords) and style (verifiable code checks), avoiding fuzzy learned RMs during training. - On open-ended and other tasks, RLVRR improves over SFT (even with 10× more data) and over other baselines, and computation overhead is very small - Mixing math RLVR data with open-ended RLVRR produces competitive math and open-ended performance, showing the framework extends the RLVR paradigm. - Quite cheap data contruction cost (and even open-sou
- The content reward relies on information extracted by the reference LLM; performance may hinge on that accuracy/quality. You show a random baseline, but I’m curious how small perturbations/noise in the extracted cues affect results. - To cut compute, the reward checks text form rather than semantics. If the policy improves and paraphrases with different wording, this approach may hit a ceiling by penalizing valid semantic matches that use different tokens. - What happens if the policy is an in
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsTopic Modeling · Natural Language Processing Techniques · Text Readability and Simplification
