Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

VeriFine: Scaling Verification for Self-Improvement in Embodied Reasoning

Zewei Zhou, Rachel Luo, Yulong Cao, Chaowei Xiao, Chensheng Peng +8 morePublished Oct 6, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few hours
Fast first run
Risk flags
1
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.

Self-improving policies continually expose new failure patterns, changing what their judges must be able to verify. However, current fixed judges constrain both optimization feedback and the discovery of useful training examples, limiting further self-improvement. This challenge is even more acute in embodied reasoning, where reliable evaluation must account for spatial grounding, causal reasoning, and safety-aware decision-making. We introduce VeriFine, an agent harness framework that scales verification through the co-evolution of the policy, training curriculum, and judge. The Policy Improvement Loop uses a rubric judge to diagnose recurring failures, construct an adaptive curriculum, and optimize the policy. When progress plateaus and verification becomes a bottleneck, the Judge Improvement Loop selectively queries human guidance on informative failure cases and refines the judge through coactive calibration, in which humans and agents resolve disagreements and converge toward the objective rubric of physical reasoning. The revised judge then guides the next stage of data selection and policy optimization. Experiments on driving and robot navigation tasks demonstrate continuous self-improvement in both policy and judge capability across reinforcement and supervised fine-tuning. These results show how scaling verification supports continuous self-improvement as policy failure patterns evolve.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
Self-improving policies continually expose new failure patterns, changing what their judges must be able to verify.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.

Reproduction risks
  • No maintained paper-verified implementation is currently available

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: hours
Last checked: Oct 24, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

Agentic tool use

Methods

Agentic systems

Domains

AI Agents

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.