RAISE is introduced, which trains policy synthesizers from formal verification in two stages, verified supervised fine-tuning (SFT) followed by a reinforcement learning (RL) stage that learns from verifier signal, and it is found that SFT succeeds largely by letting models express authorization logic they already have.
Abstract
Translating natural-language access-control requirements into policies requires careful reasoning about permissions, constraints, and exceptions, and even frontier LLMs often produce policies that violate the intended authorization semantics. We construct CedarInstruct, to our knowledge the first dataset that supports both training and semantic evaluation for formally verifiable Cedar policy synthesis. It contains 5,800 scenarios across 44 domains and 1,408 representing a single synthetic organization, each with a verified target policy and an executable verification plan. On this data we introduce RAISE, which trains policy synthesizers from formal verification in two stages, verified supervised fine-tuning (SFT) followed by a reinforcement learning (RL) stage that learns from verifier signal. We find that SFT succeeds largely by letting models express authorization logic they already have, since untrained models rarely write valid Cedar but often reason correctly when they do. After SFT, how the verifier's information is used matters more than how much of it is used. Of six RL instantiations that consume progressively richer verifier signal, only RAISE-OC improves meaningfully on SFT; it turns failed checks and symbolic counterexamples into guided exploration and learns from the result with off-context GRPO. With about 5.4K verified scenarios and LoRA fine-tuning, RAISE-OC trains Qwen3.5-9B to surpass zero-shot GPT-6 Astra and Claude Opus 5 by 13.33 and 16.26 percentage points in semantic success on held-out scenarios, and training transfers to the independently constructed CedarBench.
NLPG is proposed, an external policy-memory method for improving a fixed agent without changing its model parameters or program structure that outperforms the strongest listed baseline for each benchmark by 8.71 percentage points on average.
Xu Liu, Wen-Zhang Wei, Jun Cao et al.· 0 citations
Recent progress in large language model reasoning has been driven by benchmarks and reinforcement learning environments with automatically verifiable rewards, particularly in mathematics, code, and formal logic. These settings make model accuracy easier to evaluate and optimize, but it remains unclear how far success u...
Ibrahim Ethem Deveci, Funda Tan Çalık, Barış Deniz Sağlam et al.· 0 citations
We introduce Sequent-Prover, a family of verifier-using language-model agents, and the post-training framework that produces them. Agents reason in an executable SMT-LIB scratchpad: they write complete SMT-LIB programs, query Z3 across turns, inspect solver feedback, repair formalizations, and terminate with an explici...
Debargha Ganguly, Wei-Cong Chen, Mohsen Hariri et al.· 3 citations
State of Thought is proposed, a new reasoning paradigm that enables endogenous reasoning in LLMs, with the model's internal reasoning state governing how reasoning unfolds, and provides a generalizable and efficient alternative to existing test-time reasoning paradigms.
Z. Gong, Yi-Kun Hou, Zi-Hao Zeng et al.· 0 citations
PLVR (Program Learning with Verifiable Rewards): a post training method that learns such programs directly from input-output examples and is released with the symbolic backpropagation library and a conformance checker so the method can be applied to primitive libraries other than the authors' own.
SOLID is proposed, a novel framework for self-improving OR language models without verified answers or external evaluators that improves solution accuracy for both general-purpose and OR-tuned models over outcome-only group-relative training.
Rui-Chen Zhu, Ming-Long Cao, Chen-Yu Zhou et al.· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 23, 2026
Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.