Position: The Hidden Costs and Measurement Gaps of Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards

Abstract

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a practical, scalable way to improve large language models on math, code, and other structured tasks. However, we argue that many headline RLVR gains are not yet well validated because reports often conflate policy improvement with three confounds: (i) budget mismatch between RLVR and baseline evaluations, (ii) attempt inflation and calibration drift that convert abstentions into confident answers, and (iii) benchmark data contamination. Using budget-matched reproductions and partial-prompt contamination probes, we find that several widely cited gaps shrink substantially or disappear once budgets, prompts, and dataset versions are matched and contaminated sets are treated as memorization probes rather than evidence of reasoning. This does not mean that RLVR is ineffective, but it implies that current measurements often overstate capability gains and obscure reliability costs. We therefore propose a compact, tax-aware minimum standard for RLVR training and evaluation: budget-matched saturation curves with variance, calibration, and abstention tracking, a judge-robustness stress test when LLM judges are used, and an explicit contamination screen. With these controls, RLVR remains effective and deployable in verifiable domains, but reasoning gains should be treated as provisional without them.