arXiv AI By Sen Xu, Wei Wang, Shixi Liu, Jixin Min, Yingwei Dai, Zhibin Yin, Yirong Chen, Junlin Zhang

Claim-Level Reliability Assessment for Efficient Test-Time Reasoning

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

ReFIne: A Framework for Trustworthy Large Reasoning Models with Reliability, Faithfulness, and Interpretability

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 AI
Aug 5

Test-Time Scaling in Reasoning LLMs: Inference Regimes, Evaluation, and Reproducibility

arXiv:2608. 04001v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can solve substantially harder reasoning problems with more inference-time compute.

By Mohsen Hariri, Weicong Chen, Nahal Shahini, Vikash Singh, Kai Ye, Amirhossein Samandar, Debargha Ganguly, Sreehari Sankar, Yanyan Zhang, Shouren Wang, Jerry Peng, Biyao Zhang, Michael Hinczewski, Vipin Chaudhary
arXiv AI
Sep 17

The Missing "I Don't Know": Why Three Reasoning-Reliability Findings Converge on Calibrated Abstention

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.

By Srijith Ravikumar