The paper introduces a verifier‑guided explainable reasoning framework for educational question answering that integrates gold‑anchored QLoRA, a task‑aware symbolic router, and group‑relative RLVR. It adapts Qwen2.5‑3B‑Instruct with field‑weighted QLoRA supervision, routes logic problems to a FOL/Z3 verifier and physics problems to a symbolic solver, and uses verifier feedback for candidate evaluation, self‑revision, and reward construction. Experiments on 438 held‑out examples show that RLVR boosts reasoning depth (P3) from 50.68 % to 72.20 %, while symbolic verification improves answer reliability at the system level.
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...
arXiv:2607. 02869v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving mathematical reasoning in language models.
arXiv:2606. 09052v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Self-evolution offers a scalable path to stronger reasoning: a pretrained language model improves itself with only minimal external supervision.
arXiv:2606. 19327v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-training of reasoning language models is commonly driven by supervised distillation and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards.
arXiv:2605.31378v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) still struggle with fine-grained translation quality estimation (QE), even with long reasoning chains. We argue that...
arXiv:2605. 12519v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Training language models to produce both correct answers and sound reasoning remains an open challenge.
Post-training of reasoning language models is commonly driven by supervised distillation and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. Distillation often relies on chain-of-thought annotations that are expensive to obtain and may themselves be noisy, incomplete, or partially incorrect; even when the final solution is correct, an imperfect rationale can interfere with learning.
arXiv:2606. 05402v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) produce reasoning traces with non-linear structures, such as backtracking and self-correction, that complicate the evaluation and monitoring of the reasoning process.
arXiv:2606. 26671v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-training alignment determines the reasoning and human preference following capabilities of large language models, yet most existing works withhold detailed data construction, filtering rules and training recipes, which hinders community reproducibility and lightweight model optimization.
The paper reports that in on‑policy distillation for large language models, reasoning performance can be improved by supervising only a tiny fraction of generated tokens—sometimes just one or two tokens per reasoning trajectory, about 0.05% of all tokens. This sparse supervision consistently matches or exceeds full‑token training across nine teacher‑student setups on mathematical reasoning, and is also validated on coding reasoning, Llama models, and PPO‑based reinforcement learning with verifiable reward. The findings suggest that effective post‑training does not require token‑intensive supervision and may align more closely with natural learning processes that focus on critical reasoning steps.
arXiv:2509. 25004v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Online reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become an effective paradigm for improving the reasoning abilities of large language models, but most methods still optimize reasoning trajectories over the static problem set, wasting rollout budget on solved or overly difficult problems.
arXiv:2606. 17024v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Sparse reward reinforcement learning (RL) has become a standard tool for improving LLM reasoning, but its success depends critically on the coverage present in the base model.