arXiv:2608. 11994v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We propose claim-level falsification as a principle for test-time scaling and instantiate it through Claim-Level Reliability Assessment (CLR), a training-free framework that reallocates test-time compute from additional solution sampling to targeted verification.
arXiv:2608.22483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support decision-making in high-stakes domains, but they often hallucinate and express confidence that is mis...
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.
arXiv:2608. 04001v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can solve substantially harder reasoning problems with more inference-time compute.
arXiv:2607. 26102v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mathematical chain of thought (CoT) evaluation is commonly reduced to whether the final answer matches a reference.
arXiv:2607. 04784v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Defining the reasoning boundaries and ensuring the reliability of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) remains a critical challenge.
The paper examines three recent studies that highlight distinct reliability issues in large language models (LLMs). Each study points to a missing capability—whether a tool‑reliability representation, safe generation behavior, or a consistent‑reasoning function—yet all converge on the need for calibrated abstention. The authors argue that current benchmarks fail to reward abstention, preventing the development of this function, and propose four evaluation changes to address the gap.
arXiv:2607. 11266v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has significantly advanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet it often incurs substantial computational costs due to over-reasoning: the generation of redundant, verbose, or irrelevant steps.
arXiv:2607. 21453v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scaling inference-time computation has emerged as a reliable method to improve the performance of large language models on complex reasoning and programming tasks.
arXiv:2604. 11996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Should we trust Large Language Models (LLMs) with high accuracy?
arXiv:2608. 00422v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent reasoning traces that nevertheless lead to incorrect answers, making response-level uncertainty estimation important for abstention, human review, and adaptive compute allocation.
arXiv:2608. 08786v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as data-driven reasoners, yet their chains-of-thought (CoT) can be unfaithful even when final answers are correct.
The paper introduces T$^3$RL, a tool‑verification framework for test‑time reinforcement learning (TTRL) that mitigates the false‑popular failure mode by using external tool evidence to upweight verified rollouts during voting. By grounding pseudo‑label construction in verified evidence, T$^3$RL produces more reliable pseudo‑labels and improves performance over standard TTRL on math benchmarks such as MATH‑500, AMC, and AIME 2024. The approach positions T$^3$RL as a verified online data synthesizer, highlighting the importance of tool verification for reliable online adaptation and demonstrating extensibility to other verifiable domains.