Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 21, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Group-relative reinforcement learning compares rollouts of the same prompt, but independent environment noise can obscure these comparisons. We study paired rollouts, which share an event-keyed noise schedule within each group while preserving each rollout's marginal distribution. Pairing removes the between-schedule component of reward-contrast variance, but need not reduce gradient variance. For one-sided grader noise, we derive an exact condition for reduction and give a counterexample in which reward contrasts improve while gradient variance increases. A controlled study trains a 2B tool-use agent under tool faults and grader flips, with three seeds per design. The protocol was registered with a disclosed, previously completed pilot. Under tool faults, pairing improves final noisy-test success by +5.1 percentage points on average, with all three seed differences positive, but misses the registered learning-curve criterion. The criterion is also missed under grader flips: the validation-AUC difference is +0.003 (95% interval [-0.029, +0.033]). A gradient probe on eight distinct checkpoints from two fault-trained trajectories finds lower mean-centered covariance traces under both noise types: 21 to 30% for grader flips and 40 to 63% for tool faults. These finite-sample measurements support the variance mechanism without establishing a general learning-speed benefit. The results distinguish improving reward comparisons, reducing estimator variance, and improving learning.