ReFIne is a training framework that augments large reasoning models with three trustworthiness properties: interpretability, faithfulness, and reliability. It combines supervised fine‑tuning with GRPO to produce structured, tag‑based reasoning traces, explicitly disclose decisive information, and provide self‑assessments of soundness and confidence. Applied to Qwen3 models, ReFIne improves interpretability by 44.0 %, faithfulness by 18.8 %, and reliability by 42.4 % on mathematical benchmarks.
By Chung-En Sun, Ge Yan, Akshay Kulkarni, Tsui-Wei Weng
arXiv:2603. 05167v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably assess process faithfulness rather than merely answer plausibility.
By Avni Mittal, Rauno Arike
arXiv:2605. 24396v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Long chains of thought (CoT) from current language models frequently contain logical gaps and unjustified leaps, limiting the gains from additional test-time compute.
By Jingchu Gai, Guanning Zeng, Christina Baek, Chen Wu, J. Zico Kolter, Andrej Risteski, Aditi Raghunathan
arXiv:2603.17815v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Understanding and evaluating multi-step reasoning in LLMs at the level of individual steps remains a key challenge. Process reward models (PRMs) pr...
By Corentin Royer (International Business Machines), Anna Hedstr\"om (ETH AI Center), Debarun Bhattacharjya (Lirio), Gaetano Rossiello (International Business Machines), Andrea Giovannini (International Business Machines), Mennatallah El-Assady (Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich)
arXiv:2609.36641v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Process reward models (PRMs) have become a key component for LLMs, as their step-level feedback supports both post-training and test-time reasoning....
By Shengda Fan, Xin Cong, Zhong Zhang, Haotian Chen, Yankai Lin
arXiv:2605. 03862v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has become a common way to improve explicit reasoning in large language models, but final-answer correctness alone does not reveal whether the reasoning trace is faithful, reliable, or useful to the model that consumes it.
By Tianyang Han, Hengyu Shi, Junjie Hu, Xu Yang, Zhiling Wang, Junhao Su
arXiv:2510. 00492v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The reliability of large language models (LLMs) during test-time scaling is often assessed with \emph{external verifiers} or \emph{reward models} that distinguish correct reasoning from flawed logic.
By Dong Bok Lee, Seanie Lee, Sangwoo Park, Minki Kang, Jinheon Baek, Dongki Kim, Dominik Wagner, Jiongdao Jin, Heejun Lee, Tobias Bocklet, Jinyu Wang, Jingjing Fu, Sung Ju Hwang, Jiang Bian, Lei Song
arXiv:2608. 03291v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves large language model (LLM) performance while also providing an observable interface to the model's reasoning process.
By Shashwat Sourav, Aishwarya Balwani
The paper introduces Stepwise Think-Critique (STC), an end‑to‑end trainable framework that lets a single large language model (LLM) interleave reasoning with inline, step‑level critique. STC uses reinforcement learning to jointly reward reasoning accuracy and critique consistency, achieving a 7.2% improvement in Pass@1 on five mathematical reasoning benchmarks and a 67.4% step‑level critique F1 score, outperforming several external reward models. This approach aligns LLM behavior more closely with human critical thinking by embedding self‑evaluation directly into the reasoning process.
By Jiaqi Xu, Cuiling Lan, Xuejin Chen, Yan Lu
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
arXiv:2604. 11996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Should we trust Large Language Models (LLMs) with high accuracy?
By Manas Pathak, Xingyao Chen, Shuozhe Li, Amy Zhang, Liu Leqi
The paper introduces LSR‑Ben, a benchmark designed to evaluate process reward models (PRMs) on scientific and logical reasoning tasks, addressing a gap left by existing math‑focused benchmarks. Experiments on 22 models reveal that PRMs and LLMs perform poorly in non‑mathematical domains, with LLMs tending to over‑identify errors while PRMs tend to overlook them. LSR‑Ben aims to spur research that broadens PRM applicability and improves LLM reasoning.
By Zhouhao Sun, Xuan Zhang, Xiao Ding, Bibo Cai, Li Du, Kai Xiong, Xinran Dai, Fei Zhang, weidi tang, Zhiyuan Kan, Yang Zhao, Bing Qin, Ting Liu