The paper investigates the reliability of rule- and model-based verifiers used in reinforcement learning with verifiable reward (RLVR) for mathematical reasoning. It finds that rule-based verifiers often miss equivalent answers in different formats, causing false negatives that degrade RL performance as models improve. Model-based verifiers achieve higher static accuracy but become vulnerable to reward hacking during RL, misclassifying certain response patterns as correct after fine-tuning.
By Yuzhen Huang, Weihao Zeng, Xingshan Zeng, Qi Zhu, Junxian He
arXiv:2607. 28457v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scaling test-time computation can improve language-model reasoning, but uniform budgets waste computation on easy inputs, while verifier-guided refinement relies on external feedback.
By Hongyu Chen, Liang Lin, Guangrun Wang
arXiv:2609.21492v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has been shown to improve the performance of large language models (LLMs), yet existing optimization methods largely r...
By Jingyu Hu, Shu Yang, Weiru Liu, Di Wang
arXiv:2504. 07385v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly used for question-answering (QA), relying on static, pre-annotated references for evaluation poses significant challenges in cost, scalability, and completeness.
By Sher Badshah, Ali Emami, Hassan Sajjad
The paper introduces Proof‑R1, a reinforcement‑learning framework that trains large language models to generate verifiable proofs for natural‑language logical reasoning tasks. Proof‑R1 only accepts a generated conclusion into the proof state when it satisfies formal verification constraints, ensuring each reasoning step is machine‑checkable. The method also reconstructs the dependency closure that supports the final answer, aligning credit with valid proof steps, and shows improved answer accuracy and verifiability across multiple benchmarks and models.
By Qili Zhang, Qianren Mao, Hanze Cai, Kaiming Zhao, Yuening He, Xihan Lei, Yashuo Luo, Hanwen Hao, Yutong Gu, Likang Xiao, Zhijun Chen, Weifeng Jiang, Haoyi Zhou, Jianxin Li
arXiv:2602. 01348v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can achieve strong answer accuracy on multi-hop questions, but outcome-level rewards often leave reasoning traces weakly grounded and difficult to audit.
By Yu Liu, Wenxiao Zhang, Diandian Guo, Cong Cao, Fangfang Yuan, Qiang Sun, Yanbing Liu, Jin B. Hong, Zhiyuan Ma
arXiv:2609.38409v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Recent progress in large language model reasoning has been driven by benchmarks and reinforcement learning environments with automatically verifiable r...
By \.Ibrahim Ethem Deveci, Funda Tan \c{C}al{\i}k, Bar{\i}\c{s} Deniz Sa\u{g}lam, Duygu Ataman
arXiv:2610.19525v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Verifiable instruction-following benchmarks emphasize output-constraint satisfaction but can overlook whether responses meaningfully answer the underly...
By Sangyeon Yoon, Wooseok Seo, Hamish Ivison, Hyesoo Hong, Donghoon Kim, Wonjun Kang, Albert No, Jaehyung Kim
The paper introduces Test-Time Calibration Learning (TTCL), a label‑free framework that adapts both reasoning accuracy and verbalized confidence of large language models directly on unlabeled target‑task data. TTCL generates self‑supervision signals from multiple model responses, enabling calibration without ground‑truth labels and proving theoretically as a bounded surrogate for the ideal calibration objective. Experiments on mathematical reasoning and factual question answering show consistent improvements, with base models gaining an average 40.13% in accuracy and 70.80% in ECE reduction across eight benchmarks, and further gains under domain shift.
By Zizhuo Zhang, Xiong Peng, Jingwei Sun, Rong Yao, Shixiong Kai, Mingxuan Yuan, Bo Han
arXiv:2607. 03957v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language models can reach the right normative verdict for the wrong reason.
By Xinqi Zhang
CriticGen introduces a generation‑aware evaluation framework that generates sample‑specific evaluation dimensions and scoring criteria across categories such as subjective, objective, and self‑derived constraints. These dynamic rubrics produce a score, reason, executable refinement suggestion, and a refined answer, enabling models to diagnose and target flaws in their responses. Experiments show significant gains in rubric quality, score correlation, and actionable feedback, with 73.17% of answers improved and a 93.28% non‑degradation rate.
By Huifang Du, Zecheng Zuo, Sen Wang, Chenghao Fan, Haofen Wang, Yehui Yang
arXiv:2605. 12519v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Training language models to produce both correct answers and sound reasoning remains an open challenge.
By Kyuyoung Kim, Kevin Wang, Yunfei Xie, Peiyang Xu, Peiyao Sheng, Chen Wei, Zhangyang Wang, Jinwoo Shin, Pramod Viswanath, Sewoong Oh