Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.29029

Better Policies, Worse Verifier Audits

Daniel Cieślak·Jacek Łubiński
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Verifier stacks increasingly sit inside post-training and test-time compute loops. We study a specific control loop: a component verifier is evaluated on fresh policy outputs against the full success label and refreshed when that aggregate score falls. For a conjunctive target $y = F \wedge M$, its on-policy AUC is $(1-q)A_{\mathrm{own}} + qA_{\mathrm{cross}}$, where $q = \Pr[F=1 \mid y=0]$. As the policy masters $F$, $q$ can rise toward one, removing weight from $F$-failures and rewarding information about $M$. We call this on-policy audit collapse. We derive a sharp identified set, a complete-erasure threshold, and the exact point at which the audit can prefer a worse component verifier; its population optimum is the full-outcome predictor, not the component oracle. An exact oracle exhibits the collapse, a natural multi-label text control shows inversion can select a head with lower canonical $F$-AUC at the observed failure mixture, and a prediction-registered ECG study shows that acting on the audit can reduce off-policy $F$-AUC, transfer the damage to an unseen generator, and increase downstream constraint violations. Preserving own-failure support prevents the damage. Matching label-complexity bounds and a controlled-mixture audit give the corresponding repair: audit the component on its own failures, and keep those failures in the refresh distribution.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Daniel Cieślak, Jacek Łubiński. 2026-10-21. Better Policies, Worse Verifier Audits. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.29029

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Limits of Post-Selection Generalization

While statistics and machine learning offer numerous methods for ensuring generalization, these methods often fail in the presence of adaptivity---the common practice in which the choice of analysis depends on previous interactions with the same dataset. A recent line of work has introduced powerful, general purpose algorithms that ensure post hoc generalization (also called robust or post-selection generalization), which says that, given the output of the algorithm, it is hard to find any statistic for which the data differs significantly from the population it came from. In this work we show several limitations on the power of algorithms satisfying post hoc generalization. First, we show a tight lower bound on the error of any algorithm that satisfies post hoc generalization and answers adaptively chosen statistical queries, showing a strong barrier to progress in post selection data analysis. Second, we show that post hoc generalization is not closed under composition, despite many examples of such algorithms exhibiting strong composition properties.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Quantifying Symptom Causality in Clinical Decision Making: An Exploration Using CausaLM

Current machine learning approaches to medical diagnosis often rely on correlational patterns between symptoms and diseases, risking misdiagnoses when symptoms are ambiguous or common across multiple conditions. In this work, we move beyond correlation to investigate the causal influence of key symptoms-specifically "chest pain" on diagnostic predictions. Leveraging the CausaLM framework, we generate counterfactual text representations in which target concepts are effectively "forgotten" enabling a principled estimation of the causal effect of that concept on a model's predicted disease distribution. By employing Textual Representation-based Average Treatment Effect (TReATE), we quantify how the presence or absence of a symptom shapes the model's diagnostic outcomes, and contrast these findings against correlation-based baselines such as CONEXP. Our results offer deeper insight into the decision-making behavior of clinical NLP models and have the potential to inform more trustworthy, interpretable, and causally-grounded decision support tools in medical practice.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Understanding and Mitigating Under-Confidence in GNNs from the Final Layer

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness on graph-based tasks. However, their predictive confidence is often miscalibrated, typically exhibiting under-confidence, which harms the reliability of their decisions. Existing calibration methods for GNNs normally introduce additional calibration components, which fail to capture the intrinsic relationship between the model and the prediction confidence, resulting in limited theoretical guarantees and increased computational overhead. To address this issue, we propose a simple yet efficient graph calibration method. We establish a unified theoretical framework revealing that model confidence is jointly governed by class-centroid-level and node-level calibration at the final layer. Based on this insight, we theoretically show that reducing the weight decay of the final-layer parameters alleviates GNN under-confidence by acting on the class-centroid level, while node-level calibration acts as a finer-grained complement to class-centroid-level calibration, which encourages each test node to be closer to its predicted class prototype in the final-layer representations. Extensive experiments validate the superiority of our method. The code is released at https://github.com/huangJC0429/SCAR.

cs.LG↗