The paper introduces a decision‑theoretic framework that splits a large language model’s decision loss into belief formation and action selection components. Using a synthetic benchmark, it evaluates how reinforcement‑learning interventions on beliefs, decisions, or both affect these components across three domains. The study finds that targeting a single component improves that part but may not transfer to others, while jointly targeting both improves both only when training and evaluation formats match.
By Huaman Sun, Dingcheng Wang, Jason Hartline, Jessica Hullman
arXiv:2606. 09856v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Post-training Large Language Models (LLMs) for reasoning typically focuses on deductive tasks such as mathematics and coding where correctness is verifiable.
By Liyi Zhang, Akshay K. Jagadish, Brenden M. Lake, Thomas L. Griffiths
The paper introduces Fact-Ablated Evaluation (FAE), a framework that iteratively removes cited evidence to test whether large language models (LLMs) adjust their fact‑checking predictions accordingly. Experiments reveal that many off‑the‑shelf LLMs rely more on internal knowledge than on the provided evidence. To address this, the authors propose REAL, a training method that uses counterfactual evidence supervision to encourage LLMs to base veracity judgments on evidence, achieving better evidence‑dependent performance across four datasets.
By Xingyu Deng, Mingzi Cao, Nikolaos Aletras, Xi Wang, Mark Stevenson
arXiv:2606. 07515v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We investigate the probabilistic reasoning capabilities of large language models through a controlled benchmarking study on discrete probability problems.
By Luca Avena, Gianmarco Bet, Bernardo Busoni
arXiv:2604. 22565v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) can reason well, yet often miss decisive evidence when it is buried in long, noisy contexts.
By Shaoang Li, Yanhang Shi, Yufei Li, Mingfu Liang, Xiaohan Wei, Yunchen Pu, Fei Tian, Chonglin Sun, Frank Shyu, Luke Simon, Sandeep Pandey, Xi Liu, Jian Li
arXiv:2604.08454v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, where confident yet incorrect inferences may cause severe real-world harm,...
By Haokai Ma, Lee Yan Zhen, Gang Yang, Yunxiang Chen, Yunshan Ma, Tat-Seng Chua, Ee-Chien Chang
arXiv:2609.13520v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: While Large Language Models have improved rapidly, many fundamental questions remain about how to evaluate the knowledge and reasoning abilities they a...
By Kyle Richardson, Cullen Anderson, Pranav Balakrishnan, Takuto Ban, Daksha Ladia, Ankita Gupta, Marisa Hudspeth
arXiv:2606. 04503v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has greatly advanced large reasoning models (LRMs), but it requires timely training on a huge fully-annotated dataset.
By Guangcheng Zhu, Shenzhi Yang, Haobo Wang, Xing Zheng, Yingfan MA, Xuening Feng, Zhongqi Chen, Bowen Song, Weiqiang Wang, Gang Chen
arXiv:2510. 19698v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) can propose rules in natural language, sidestepping the need for a predefined predicate space in traditional rule learning.
By Yang Yang, Hua XU, Zhangyi Hu, Yutao Yue
Natural language understanding often depends on meanings that are implied rather than explicitly stated, requiring pragmatic reasoning. Despite strong performance on math and logical reasoning, large language models (LLMs) still struggle with making pragmatic inferences, often choosing literal interpretations.
arXiv:2603. 09803v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) improves reasoning in large language models but treats all correct solutions equally, potentially reinforcing flawed traces that arrive at correct answers by chance.
By Tiehua Mei, Minxuan Lv, Leiyu Pan, Zhenpeng Su, Hongru Hou, Hengrui Chen, Ao Xu, Deqing Yang
The paper investigates whether the high costs of training chain-of-thought reasoning models can be reduced through algorithmic design. It introduces an autocurriculum approach that lets the model select which problems to focus on during training, showing that this method provably improves both supervised fine‑tuning and reinforcement learning. For supervised fine‑tuning, autocurriculum requires exponentially fewer reasoning demonstrations by targeting prompts where the model struggles, while for reinforcement learning it decouples computational cost from the quality of the reference model, making the burn‑in cost nearly independent of target accuracy.
By Nived Rajaraman, Audrey Huang, Miro Dudik, Robert Schapire, Dylan J. Foster, Akshay Krishnamurthy