Daily Papers

Complex reasoning tasks often rely on the ability to consistently and accurately apply simple rules across incremental steps, a foundational capability which we term "level-0" reasoning. To systematically evaluate this capability, we introduce L0-Bench, a language model benchmark for testing procedural correctness -- the ability to generate correct reasoning processes, complementing existing benchmarks that primarily focus on outcome correctness. Given synthetic Python functions with simple operations, L0-Bench grades models on their ability to generate step-by-step, error-free execution traces. The synthetic nature of L0-Bench enables systematic and scalable generation of test programs along various axes (e.g., number of trace steps). We evaluate a diverse array of recent closed-source and open-weight models on a baseline test set. All models exhibit degradation as the number of target trace steps increases, while larger models and reasoning-enhanced models better maintain correctness over multiple steps. Additionally, we use L0-Bench to explore test-time scaling along three dimensions: input context length, number of solutions for majority voting, and inference steps. Our results suggest substantial room to improve "level-0" reasoning and potential directions to build more reliable reasoning systems.

Small language models (SLMs) struggle with complex reasoning because exploration is expensive under tight compute budgets. We introduce Semantic Diversity-Exploration-Exploitation (SD-E^2), a reinforcement learning framework that makes exploration explicit by optimizing semantic diversity in generated reasoning trajectories. Using a frozen sentence-embedding model, SD-E^2 assigns a diversity reward that captures (i) the coverage of semantically distinct solution strategies and (ii) their average pairwise dissimilarity in embedding space, rather than surface-form novelty. This diversity reward is combined with outcome correctness and solution efficiency in a z-score-normalized multi-objective objective that stabilizes training. On GSM8K, SD-E^2 surpasses the base Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct and strong GRPO baselines (GRPO-CFL and GRPO-CFEE) by +27.4, +5.2, and +1.5 percentage points, respectively, while discovering on average 9.8 semantically distinct strategies per question. We further improve MedMCQA to 49.64% versus 38.37% for the base model and show gains on the harder AIME benchmark (1983-2025), reaching 13.28% versus 6.74% for the base. These results indicate that rewarding semantic novelty yields a more compute-efficient exploration-exploitation signal for training reasoning-capable SLMs. By introducing cognitive adaptation-adjusting the reasoning process structure rather than per-token computation-SD-E^2 offers a complementary path to efficiency gains in resource-constrained models.

Agentic coding harnesses - such as Agent-Skills, Superpowers, and Agent-Rigor - are increasingly deployed to augment underlying LLMs for real-world software engineering tasks. Existing benchmarks evaluate these agents almost exclusively on outcome correctness: whether generated code passes tests or resolves issues. We argue that this outcome-only lens is insufficient: an agent that arrives at a correct solution through reckless trial-and-error, without planning, verification, or graceful recovery, is fundamentally less reliable than one that follows sound engineering discipline. We introduce RigorBench, the first benchmark designed to measure process discipline in AI coding agents. RigorBench evaluates these harnesses across five pillars: Planning Fidelity, Verification Coverage, Recovery Efficiency, Abstention Quality, and Atomic Transition Integrity. A composite RigorScore aggregates these dimensions into a single metric via a weighted sum. We curate a suite of 30 tasks spanning five categories - Plan-Then-Build, Verify-Or-Die, Doom Loop Gauntlet, Know When to Fold, and Don't Break the Build-and evaluate leading harnesses in a controlled with/without experimental design against baseline coding assistants. Our results show that structured process discipline not only improves process quality scores by an average of 41% but also raises downstream outcome correctness by 17%, providing the first quantitative evidence that how agents code matters as much as what they produce. We release the full benchmark, scoring rubrics, and trajectory analysis tools as open-source artifacts.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a promising paradigm for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). In this context, models explore reasoning trajectories and exploit rollouts with correct answers as positive signals for policy optimization. However, these rollouts might involve flawed patterns such as answer-guessing and jump-in-reasoning. Such flawed-positive rollouts are rewarded identically to fully correct ones, causing policy models to internalize these unreliable reasoning patterns. In this work, we first conduct a systematic study of flawed-positive rollouts in RL and find that they enable rapid capability gains during the early optimization stage, while constraining reasoning capability later by reinforcing unreliable patterns. Building on these insights, we propose Flawed-Aware Policy Optimization (FAPO), which presents a parameter-free reward penalty for flawed-positive rollouts, enabling the policy to leverage them as useful shortcuts in the warm-up stage, securing stable early gains, while gradually shifting optimization toward reliable reasoning in the later refinement stage. To accurately and comprehensively detect flawed-positive rollouts, we introduce a generative reward model (GenRM) with a process-level reward that precisely localizes reasoning errors. Experiments show that FAPO is effective in broad domains, improving outcome correctness, process reliability, and training stability without increasing the token budget.

Search-integrated reasoning enables language agents to transcend static parametric knowledge by actively querying external sources. However, training these agents via reinforcement learning is hindered by the multi-scale credit assignment problem: existing methods typically rely on sparse, trajectory-level rewards that fail to distinguish between high-quality reasoning and fortuitous guesses, leading to redundant or misleading search behaviors. To address this, we propose Search-R2, a novel Actor-Refiner collaboration framework that enhances reasoning through targeted intervention, with both components jointly optimized during training. Our approach decomposes the generation process into an Actor, which produces initial reasoning trajectories, and a Meta-Refiner, which selectively diagnoses and repairs flawed steps via a 'cut-and-regenerate' mechanism. To provide fine-grained supervision, we introduce a hybrid reward design that couples outcome correctness with a dense process reward quantifying the information density of retrieved evidence. Theoretically, we formalize the Actor-Refiner interaction as a smoothed mixture policy, proving that selective correction yields strict performance gains over strong baselines. Extensive experiments across various general and multi-hop QA datasets demonstrate that Search-R2 consistently outperforms strong RAG and RL-based baselines across model scales, achieving superior reasoning accuracy with minimal overhead.

In recent years, Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have been extensively utilized for multimodal reasoning tasks, including Graphical User Interface (GUI) automation. Unlike general offline multimodal tasks, GUI automation is executed in online interactive environments, necessitating step-by-step decision-making based on real-time status of the environment. This task has a lower tolerance for decision-making errors at each step, as any mistakes may cumulatively disrupt the process and potentially lead to irreversible outcomes like deletions or payments. To address these issues, we introduce a pre-operative critic mechanism that provides effective feedback prior to the actual execution, by reasoning about the potential outcome and correctness of actions. Specifically, we propose a Suggestion-aware Gradient Relative Policy Optimization (S-GRPO) strategy to construct our pre-operative critic model GUI-Critic-R1, incorporating a novel suggestion reward to enhance the reliability of the model's feedback. Furthermore, we develop a reasoning-bootstrapping based data collection pipeline to create a GUI-Critic-Train and a GUI-Critic-Test, filling existing gaps in GUI critic data. Static experiments on the GUI-Critic-Test across both mobile and web domains reveal that our GUI-Critic-R1 offers significant advantages in critic accuracy compared to current MLLMs. Dynamic evaluation on GUI automation benchmark further highlights the effectiveness and superiority of our model, as evidenced by improved success rates and operational efficiency.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has recently emerged as a compelling approach for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), where an LLM generator serves as a policy guided by a verifier (reward model). However, current RL post-training methods for LLMs typically use verifiers that are fixed (rule-based or frozen pretrained) or trained discriminatively via supervised fine-tuning (SFT). Such designs are susceptible to reward hacking and generalize poorly beyond their training distributions. To overcome these limitations, we propose Tango, a novel framework that uses RL to concurrently train both an LLM generator and a verifier in an interleaved manner. A central innovation of Tango is its generative, process-level LLM verifier, which is trained via RL and co-evolves with the generator. Importantly, the verifier is trained solely based on outcome-level verification correctness rewards without requiring explicit process-level annotations. This generative RL-trained verifier exhibits improved robustness and superior generalization compared to deterministic or SFT-trained verifiers, fostering effective mutual reinforcement with the generator. Extensive experiments demonstrate that both components of Tango achieve state-of-the-art results among 7B/8B-scale models: the generator attains best-in-class performance across five competition-level math benchmarks and four challenging out-of-domain reasoning tasks, while the verifier leads on the ProcessBench dataset. Remarkably, both components exhibit particularly substantial improvements on the most difficult mathematical reasoning problems. Code is at: https://github.com/kaiwenzha/rl-tango.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) integrates external knowledge with Large Language Models (LLMs) to enhance factual correctness and mitigate hallucination. However, dense retrievers often become the bottleneck of RAG systems due to their limited parameters compared to LLMs and their inability to perform step-by-step reasoning. While prompt-based iterative RAG attempts to address these limitations, it is constrained by human-designed workflows. To address these limitations, we propose R3-RAG, which uses Reinforcement learning to make the LLM learn how to Reason and Retrieve step by step, thus retrieving comprehensive external knowledge and leading to correct answers. R3-RAG is divided into two stages. We first use cold start to make the model learn the manner of iteratively interleaving reasoning and retrieval. Then we use reinforcement learning to further harness its ability to better explore the external retrieval environment. Specifically, we propose two rewards for R3-RAG: 1) answer correctness for outcome reward, which judges whether the trajectory leads to a correct answer; 2) relevance-based document verification for process reward, encouraging the model to retrieve documents that are relevant to the user question, through which we can let the model learn how to iteratively reason and retrieve relevant documents to get the correct answer. Experimental results show that R3-RAG significantly outperforms baselines and can transfer well to different retrievers. We release R3-RAG at https://github.com/Yuan-Li-FNLP/R3-RAG.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has emerged to be a predominant paradigm for mathematical reasoning tasks, offering stable improvements in reasoning ability. However, Outcome Reward Models (ORMs) in RLVR are too coarse-grained to distinguish flawed reasoning within correct answers or valid reasoning within incorrect answers. This lack of granularity introduces noisy and misleading gradients significantly and hinders further progress in reasoning process quality. While Process Reward Models (PRMs) offer fine-grained guidance for intermediate steps, they frequently suffer from inaccuracies and are susceptible to reward hacking. To resolve this dilemma, we introduce PRocess cOnsistency Filter (PROF), an effective data process curation method that harmonizes noisy, fine-grained process rewards with accurate, coarse-grained outcome rewards. Rather than naively blending PRM and ORM in the objective function (arXiv:archive/2506.18896), PROF leverages their complementary strengths through consistency-driven sample selection. Our approach retains correct responses with higher averaged process values and incorrect responses with lower averaged process values, while maintaining positive/negative training sample balance. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method not only consistently improves the final accuracy over 4% compared to the blending approaches, but also strengthens the quality of intermediate reasoning steps. Codes and training recipes are available at https://github.com/Chenluye99/PROF.

Reasoning prefixes shape the future trajectory of LLM problem solving, yet existing process reward models usually evaluate them through local step correctness. We argue that correctness is a useful but indirect proxy for the effect we ultimately care about: whether a prefix increases the probability of successful completion. We define this effect as prefix gain, the solve-rate improvement induced by conditioning lightweight student model group on a prefix, and use it to train a Prefix Utility Model (PUM) with a simple pairwise ranking objective. PUM learns outcome-grounded prefix utility and can score both complete trajectories and partial reasoning prefixes. Across Best-of-N selection, beam search, and reinforcement learning on mathematical reasoning, PUM provides a strong prefix-level supervision signal, especially when candidate pools are large, search budgets increase, or rule-based rewards are sparse. We release all data, models, and code at https://zhiqix.github.io/pum-project-page.

Transformers trained via Reinforcement Learning (RL) with outcome-based supervision can spontaneously develop the ability to generate intermediate reasoning steps (Chain-of-Thought). Yet the mechanism by which sparse rewards drive policy gradient to discover such systematic reasoning remains poorly understood. We address this by analyzing the policy gradient dynamics of single-layer Transformers on a synthetic graph traversal task that cannot be solved without Chain-of-Thought but admits a simple iterative solution. We prove that despite training solely on final-answer correctness, policy gradient drives the Transformer to converge to a structured, interpretable algorithm that iteratively traverses the graph vertex-by-vertex. We characterize the distributional properties required for this emergence, identifying the critical role of "simple examples": instances requiring fewer reasoning steps. When the training distribution places sufficient mass on these simpler examples, the Transformer learns a generalizable traversal strategy that extrapolates to longer chains; when this mass vanishes, policy gradient learning becomes infeasible. We corroborate our theoretical results through experiments on synthetic data and with real-world language models on mathematical reasoning tasks, validating that our theoretical findings carry over to practical settings.

Large Language Models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in code generation, yet they often struggle with complex programming tasks that require deep algorithmic reasoning. While process supervision through learned reward models shows promise in guiding reasoning steps, it requires expensive training data and suffers from unreliable evaluation. We propose Outcome-Refining Process Supervision, a novel paradigm that treats outcome refinement itself as the process to be supervised. Our framework leverages concrete execution signals to ground the supervision of reasoning steps, while using tree-structured exploration to maintain multiple solution trajectories simultaneously. Experiments demonstrate that our approach enables even smaller models to achieve high success accuracy and performance metrics on competitive programming tasks, creates more reliable verification than traditional reward models without requiring training PRMs. Our approach achieves significant improvements across 5 models and 3 datasets: an average of 26.9% increase in correctness and 42.2% in efficiency. The results suggest that providing structured reasoning space with concrete verification signals is crucial for solving complex programming tasks. We open-source all our code and data at: https://github.com/zhuohaoyu/ORPS

Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a powerful method for improving the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). Outcome-based RL, which rewards policies solely for the correctness of the final answer, yields substantial accuracy gains but also induces a systematic loss in generation diversity. This collapse undermines real-world performance, where diversity is critical for test-time scaling. We analyze this phenomenon by viewing RL post-training as a sampling process and show that, strikingly, RL can reduce effective diversity even on the training set relative to the base model. Our study highlights two central findings: (i) a transfer of diversity degradation, where reduced diversity on solved problems propagates to unsolved ones, and (ii) the tractability of the outcome space, since reasoning tasks admit only a limited set of distinct answers. Motivated by these insights, we propose outcome-based exploration, which assigns exploration bonuses according to final outcomes. We introduce two complementary algorithms: historical exploration, which encourages rarely observed answers via UCB-style bonuses, and batch exploration, which penalizes within-batch repetition to promote test-time diversity. Experiments on standard competition math with Llama and Qwen models demonstrate that both methods improve accuracy while mitigating diversity collapse. On the theoretical side, we formalize the benefit of outcome-based exploration through a new model of outcome-based bandits. Together, these contributions chart a practical path toward RL methods that enhance reasoning without sacrificing the diversity essential for scalable deployment.

Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with maintaining accuracy across a sequence of intermediate reasoning steps in mathematical reasoning, leading to error propagation that undermines the final result. The current methodology to mitigate this issue primarily involves using a verifier model to assess the correctness of generated solution candidates, focusing either on the overall reasoning path or on an incomplete reasoning path. By rethinking this approach, we argue that assessing potentials of incomplete reasoning paths could be more advantageous as it guides towards correct final answers, transforming the task into a planning problem. Our proposed verifier, the Outcome-supervision Value Model (OVM), employs outcome supervision for training, offering an efficient and intuitive method for planning by prioritizing steps that lead to accurate conclusions over mere per-step correctness. Furthermore, the OVM eschews the need for labor-intensive annotations on step-level correctness, enhancing its scalability. Our experiments on two multi-step mathematical reasoning datasets, GSM8K and Game of 24, demonstrate the superior performance of the OVM model. Notably, in GSM8K, our OVM-7B model achieves state-of-the-art results among LLMs up to 13B parameters; especially it does not utilize GPT-4 or code execution. These findings offer a novel perspective on the role of outcome supervision in training verifiers for multi-step reasoning tasks and provide theoretical justification for its advantage in value estimation for planning.

Text-to-SQL, the task of translating natural language questions into SQL queries, has significantly advanced with the introduction of Large Language Models (LLMs), broadening database accessibility for a wide range of users. Despite substantial progress in generating valid SQL, current LLMs still struggle with complex queries that require precise alignment between user intent and the database schema. To mitigate this, test-time strategies such as Best-of-N (BoN) and Majority Voting (Maj) are often employed, based on the assumption that LLMs can generate correct answers but may require multiple attempts. However, these methods rely on surface-level heuristics, selecting either the syntactically correct query through execution-based BoN (ex-BoN) or the most frequently generated query with Maj. Recently, Outcome Reward Models (ORMs), which assign utility scores to generated outputs based on semantic correctness, have emerged as a promising approach for better aligning model predictions with user intent. Nevertheless, their application to Text-to-SQL remains largely underexplored. In this work, we evaluate ORMs as an effective heuristic for BoN, compare them with ex-BoN and Maj, and introduce a framework for training ORMs for the Text-to-SQL task. We evaluate our ORMs on the BIRD and SPIDER benchmarks, finetuning various open-source LLMs, including the Qwen2, Granite3, and Llama3 model families. Our results show that ORMs outperform ex-BoN and Maj, achieving execution accuracy gains of +4.33% (BIRD) and +2.10% (Spider) over ex-BoN, and +2.91% (BIRD) and +0.93% (Spider) over Maj. We further demonstrate that finetuning models already aligned with SQL generation, such as OmniSQL, yields superior ORM performance. Additionally, we observe that ORMs achieve competitive results on simple queries and benefit more from an increased number of candidates compared to ex-BoN and Maj.

Reasoning abilities, especially those for solving complex math problems, are crucial components of general intelligence. Recent advances by proprietary companies, such as o-series models of OpenAI, have made remarkable progress on reasoning tasks. However, the complete technical details remain unrevealed, and the techniques that are believed certainly to be adopted are only reinforcement learning (RL) and the long chain of thoughts. This paper proposes a new RL framework, termed OREAL, to pursue the performance limit that can be achieved through Outcome REwArd-based reinforcement Learning for mathematical reasoning tasks, where only binary outcome rewards are easily accessible. We theoretically prove that behavior cloning on positive trajectories from best-of-N (BoN) sampling is sufficient to learn the KL-regularized optimal policy in binary feedback environments. This formulation further implies that the rewards of negative samples should be reshaped to ensure the gradient consistency between positive and negative samples. To alleviate the long-existing difficulties brought by sparse rewards in RL, which are even exacerbated by the partial correctness of the long chain of thought for reasoning tasks, we further apply a token-level reward model to sample important tokens in reasoning trajectories for learning. With OREAL, for the first time, a 7B model can obtain 94.0 pass@1 accuracy on MATH-500 through RL, being on par with 32B models. OREAL-32B also surpasses previous 32B models trained by distillation with 95.0 pass@1 accuracy on MATH-500. Our investigation also indicates the importance of initial policy models and training queries for RL. Code, models, and data will be released to benefit future researchhttps://github.com/InternLM/OREAL.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly aided developers by generating or assisting in code writing, enhancing productivity across various tasks. While identifying incorrect code is often straightforward, detecting vulnerabilities in functionally correct code is more challenging, especially for developers with limited security knowledge, which poses considerable security risks of using LLM-generated code and underscores the need for robust evaluation benchmarks that assess both functional correctness and security. Current benchmarks like CyberSecEval and SecurityEval attempt to solve it but are hindered by unclear and impractical specifications, failing to assess both functionality and security accurately. To tackle these deficiencies, we introduce CWEval, a novel outcome-driven evaluation framework designed to enhance the evaluation of secure code generation by LLMs. This framework not only assesses code functionality but also its security simultaneously with high-quality task specifications and outcome-driven test oracles which provides high accuracy. Coupled with CWEval-bench, a multilingual, security-critical coding benchmark, CWEval provides a rigorous empirical security evaluation on LLM-generated code, overcoming previous benchmarks' shortcomings. Through our evaluations, CWEval reveals a notable portion of functional but insecure code produced by LLMs, and shows a serious inaccuracy of previous evaluations, ultimately contributing significantly to the field of secure code generation. We open-source our artifact at: https://github.com/Co1lin/CWEval .

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) elicits long chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models (LLMs), but outcome-based rewards lead to coarse-grained advantage estimation. While existing approaches improve RLVR via token-level entropy or sequence-level length control, they lack a semantically grounded, step-level measure of reasoning progress. As a result, LLMs fail to distinguish necessary deduction from redundant verification: they may continue checking after reaching a correct solution and, in extreme cases, overturn a correct trajectory into an incorrect final answer. To remedy the lack of process supervision, we introduce a training-free probing mechanism that extracts intermediate confidence and correctness and combines them into a Step Potential signal that explicitly estimates the reasoning state at each step. Building on this signal, we propose Step Potential Advantage Estimation (SPAE), a fine-grained credit assignment method that amplifies potential gains, penalizes potential drops, and applies penalty after potential saturates to encourage timely termination. Experiments across multiple benchmarks show SPAE consistently improves accuracy while substantially reducing response length, outperforming strong RL baselines and recent efficient reasoning and token-level advantage estimation methods. The code is available at https://github.com/cii030/SPAE-RL.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in reasoning with the emergence of reasoning models like OpenAI-o1 and DeepSeek-R1. Recent research focuses on integrating reasoning capabilities into the realm of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) via outcome-supervised reinforcement learning (RL) approaches, while the correctness of intermediate think-and-search steps is usually neglected. To address this issue, we design a process-level reward module to mitigate the unawareness of intermediate reasoning steps in outcome-level supervision without additional annotation. Grounded on this, we propose Learning to Think-and-Search (LeTS), a novel framework that hybridizes stepwise process reward and outcome-based reward to current RL methods for RAG. Extensive experiments demonstrate the generalization and inference efficiency of LeTS across various RAG benchmarks. In addition, these results reveal the potential of process- and outcome-level reward hybridization in boosting LLMs' reasoning ability via RL under other scenarios. The code will be released soon.

We propose Process-Aware Policy Optimization (PAPO), a method that integrates process-level evaluation into Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) through decoupled advantage normalization, to address two limitations of existing reward designs. Outcome reward models (ORM) evaluate only final-answer correctness, treating all correct responses identically regardless of reasoning quality, and gradually lose the advantage signal as groups become uniformly correct. Process reward models (PRM) offer richer supervision, but directly using PRM scores causes reward hacking, where models exploit verbosity to inflate scores while accuracy collapses. PAPO resolves both by composing the advantage from an outcome component Aout, derived from ORM and normalized over all responses, and a process component Aproc, derived from a rubric-based PRM and normalized exclusively among correct responses. This decoupled design ensures that Aout anchors training on correctness while Aproc differentiates reasoning quality without distorting the outcome signal. Experiments across multiple model scales and six benchmarks demonstrate that PAPO consistently outperforms ORM, reaching 51.3% vs.\ 46.3% on OlympiadBench while continuing to improve as ORM plateaus and declines.

Effective reward design is a central challenge in Reinforcement Learning (RL) for code generation. Mainstream pass/fail outcome rewards enforce functional correctness via executing unit tests, but the resulting sparsity limits potential performance gains. While recent work has explored external Reward Models (RM) to generate richer, continuous rewards, the learned RMs suffer from reward misalignment and prohibitive computational cost. In this paper, we introduce VeRPO (Verifiable Dense Reward Policy Optimization), a novel RL framework for code generation that synthesizes robust and dense rewards fully grounded in verifiable execution feedback. The core idea of VeRPO is constructing dense rewards from weighted partial success: by dynamically estimating the difficulty weight of each unit test based on the execution statistics during training, a dense reward is derived from the sum of weights of the passed unit tests. To solidify the consistency between partial success and end-to-end functional correctness, VeRPO further integrates the dense signal with global execution outcomes, establishing a robust and dense reward paradigm relying solely on verifiable execution feedback. Extensive experiments across diverse benchmarks and settings demonstrate that VeRPO consistently outperforms outcome-driven and RM-based baselines, achieving up to +8.83\% gain in pass@1 with negligible time cost (< 0.02\%) and zero GPU memory overhead.

State-of-the-art language models can exhibit impressive reasoning refinement capabilities on math, science or coding tasks. However, recent work demonstrates that even the best models struggle to identify when and where to refine without access to external feedback. Outcome-based Reward Models (ORMs), trained to predict correctness of the final answer indicating when to refine, offer one convenient solution for deciding when to refine. Process Based Reward Models (PRMs), trained to predict correctness of intermediate steps, can then be used to indicate where to refine. But they are expensive to train, requiring extensive human annotations. In this paper, we propose Stepwise ORMs (SORMs) which are trained, only on synthetic data, to approximate the expected future reward of the optimal policy or V^{star}. More specifically, SORMs are trained to predict the correctness of the final answer when sampling the current policy many times (rather than only once as in the case of ORMs). Our experiments show that SORMs can more accurately detect incorrect reasoning steps compared to ORMs, thus improving downstream accuracy when doing refinements. We then train global refinement models, which take only the question and a draft solution as input and predict a corrected solution, and local refinement models which also take as input a critique indicating the location of the first reasoning error. We generate training data for both models synthetically by reusing data used to train the SORM. We find combining global and local refinements, using the ORM as a reranker, significantly outperforms either one individually, as well as a best of three sample baseline. With this strategy we can improve the accuracy of a LLaMA-2 13B model (already fine-tuned with RL) on GSM8K from 53\% to 65\% when greedily sampled.

Agentic multimodal models perform diverse operations on an image via code and reason over the returned view, an effective paradigm for fine-grained visual question answering. However, code operations can be useful, redundant, or misleading. Outcome-only rewards cannot precisely distinguish these cases, and existing process rewards either fail to attribute final correctness to individual tool calls, or require an external judge model. To address this, we introduce Tool-Augmented Credit Optimization (TACO), a GRPO variant for code-tool agents built on two coupled advantage channels. The first, Differential Answer-Probe Reward (DAPR), is a self-supervised, judge-free tool-contribution advantage that credits each tool call by its own effect on answering correctly. Probe tokens inserted into the model's reasoning elicit its predictions with and without the tool, and the difference in outcome reward is taken as the call's value: positive for a useful call, negative for a misleading one, and zero for one that changes nothing. This reuses the existing answer checker with no auxiliary judge, and, being a difference rather than an absolute probe score, is naturally robust to probe-hacking. The second is the outcome advantage from the final answer, distributed by Outcome-Gated Advantage Routing (OGAR): a parameter-free rule that, conditioned on the call's outcome, delivers this credit only to the responsible segments, suppressing wasted tool calls without any cost term. We train TACO through a two-stage SFT+RL pipeline. Extensive experiments across perception, reasoning, and general multimodal benchmarks show that it yields consistent accuracy gains and learns to invoke its tools only when they help.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated that Process Reward Models (PRMs) play a crucial role in enhancing model performance. However, training PRMs typically requires step-level labels, either manually annotated or automatically generated, which can be costly and difficult to obtain at scale. To address this challenge, we introduce FreePRM, a weakly supervised framework for training PRMs without access to ground-truth step-level labels. FreePRM first generates pseudo step-level labels based on the correctness of final outcome, and then employs Buffer Probability to eliminate impact of noise inherent in pseudo labeling. Experimental results show that FreePRM achieves an average F1 score of 53.0% on ProcessBench, outperforming fully supervised PRM trained on Math-Shepherd by +24.1%. Compared to other open-source PRMs, FreePRM outperforms upon RLHFlow-PRM-Mistral-8B (28.4%) by +24.6%, EurusPRM (31.3%) by +21.7%, and Skywork-PRM-7B (42.1%) by +10.9%. This work introduces a new paradigm in PRM training, significantly reducing reliance on costly step-level annotations while maintaining strong performance.

Theorem proving serves as a major testbed for evaluating complex reasoning abilities in large language models (LLMs). However, traditional automated theorem proving (ATP) approaches rely heavily on formal proof systems that poorly align with LLMs' strength derived from informal, natural language knowledge acquired during pre-training. In this work, we propose DeepTheorem, a comprehensive informal theorem-proving framework exploiting natural language to enhance LLM mathematical reasoning. DeepTheorem includes a large-scale benchmark dataset consisting of 121K high-quality IMO-level informal theorems and proofs spanning diverse mathematical domains, rigorously annotated for correctness, difficulty, and topic categories, accompanied by systematically constructed verifiable theorem variants. We devise a novel reinforcement learning strategy (RL-Zero) explicitly tailored to informal theorem proving, leveraging the verified theorem variants to incentivize robust mathematical inference. Additionally, we propose comprehensive outcome and process evaluation metrics examining proof correctness and the quality of reasoning steps. Extensive experimental analyses demonstrate DeepTheorem significantly improves LLM theorem-proving performance compared to existing datasets and supervised fine-tuning protocols, achieving state-of-the-art accuracy and reasoning quality. Our findings highlight DeepTheorem's potential to fundamentally advance automated informal theorem proving and mathematical exploration.

Long-horizon agentic tasks pose a fundamental credit assignment challenge for outcome-base reinforcement learning: trajectory-level rewards verify final correctness but provide limited guidance on which intermediate reasoning steps or tool interactions contribute to the outcome. The difficulty is especially pronounced in multi-turn search agents, where successful trajectories may contain misleading actions and failed trajectories may contain valuable evidence-gathering steps. We propose PBSD (Privileged Bayesian Self-Distillation), a Bayes-calibrated self-distillation method for fine-grained credit assignment under sparse final rewards. PBSD measures trajectory quality through the posterior-to-prior probability ratio of the verified answer and applies Bayes' rule to convert this hard-to-estimate answer-side ratio into a tractable likelihood ratio between a standard student model and a privileged answer-conditioned teacher model. Autoregressive decomposition of this Bayesian evidence score yields turn-level signals that identify whether each intermediate turn supports or undermines the verified outcome. Consequently, PBSD provides a principled and elegant reweighting scheme that transforms sparse outcome supervision into Bayes-calibrated turn-level credit signals, while remaining fully compatible with standard policy optimization. Experiments demonstrate that PBSD consistently enhances performance across both in-domain and out-of-domain settings, and effectively transfers knowledge from short-context training to long-context inference, suggesting that its fine-grained credit assignment mechanism facilitates more effective policy learning and yields improved generalization.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has significantly advanced the reasoning capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, RLVR solely relies on final answers as outcome rewards, neglecting the correctness of intermediate reasoning steps. Training on these process-wrong but outcome-correct rollouts can lead to hallucination and answer-copying, severely undermining the model's generalization and robustness. To address this, we incorporate a Contrastive Learning mechanism into the Policy Optimization (CLIPO) to generalize the RLVR process. By optimizing a contrastive loss over successful rollouts, CLIPO steers the LLM to capture the invariant structure shared across correct reasoning paths. This provides a more robust cross-trajectory regularization than the original single-path supervision in RLVR, effectively mitigating step-level reasoning inconsistencies and suppressing hallucinatory artifacts. In experiments, CLIPO consistently improves multiple RLVR baselines across diverse reasoning benchmarks, demonstrating uniform improvements in generalization and robustness for policy optimization of LLMs. Our code and training recipes are available at https://github.com/Qwen-Applications/CLIPO.

Function-calling agents -- large language models that invoke tools and APIs -- require high-quality, domain-specific training data spanning executable environments, backing databases, and diverse multi-turn trajectories. We introduce EigenData, an integrated, self-evolving platform that automates the full data lifecycle through a multi-agent architecture. A top-level orchestrator, EigenCore, coordinates three specialized sub-systems: DatabaseAgent for realistic domain database construction, CodingAgent for verified executable environment generation with iterative test-debug loops, and DataAgent for multi-turn trajectory synthesis with self-evolving prompt optimization. Cross-component feedback ensures consistency across all artifacts. We apply EigenData to audit and repair the Berkeley Function-Calling Leaderboard (BFCL-V3), identifying systematic errors in function schemas, implementations, and reference trajectories, automatically correcting them through coordinated schema refinement, code-level bug fixes, and trajectory modification, and introducing an outcome-aware evaluation protocol that assesses task success via database-state correctness rather than turn-level trajectory matching. We demonstrate that the repaired benchmark, coupled with outcome-aware metrics, produces model rankings substantially better correlated with human judgments of functional correctness.

Doctors and patients alike increasingly use Large Language Models (LLMs) to diagnose clinical cases. However, unlike domains such as math or coding, where correctness can be objectively defined by the final answer, medical diagnosis requires both the outcome and the reasoning process to be accurate. Currently, widely used medical benchmarks like MedQA and MMLU assess only accuracy in the final answer, overlooking the quality and faithfulness of the clinical reasoning process. To address this limitation, we introduce MedCaseReasoning, the first open-access dataset for evaluating LLMs on their ability to align with clinician-authored diagnostic reasoning. The dataset includes 14,489 diagnostic question-and-answer cases, each paired with detailed reasoning statements derived from open-access medical case reports. We evaluate state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs on MedCaseReasoning and find significant shortcomings in their diagnoses and reasoning: for instance, the top-performing open-source model, DeepSeek-R1, achieves only 48% 10-shot diagnostic accuracy and mentions only 64% of the clinician reasoning statements (recall). However, we demonstrate that fine-tuning LLMs on the reasoning traces derived from MedCaseReasoning significantly improves diagnostic accuracy and clinical reasoning recall by an average relative gain of 29% and 41%, respectively. The open-source dataset, code, and models are available at https://github.com/kevinwu23/Stanford-MedCaseReasoning.

Conversational shopping agents represent a critical consumer-facing application of Large Language Model (LLM)-powered agents, yet how to effectively apply post-training Reinforcement Learning (RL) to optimize such agents remains underexplored. This work investigates RL-based optimization for shopping agents in real-world scenarios, where agents must simultaneously satisfy multiple interdependent objectives spanning objective metrics (product correctness), subjective qualities (persuasiveness), outcome rewards (final response quality), and process rewards (tool efficiency). We present a complete methodology to address this challenge. Specifically, we first construct SmartShopBench, a benchmark that captures diverse shopping intents with a hierarchical evaluation that decomposes complex quality requirements into measurable levels. Building on this evaluation framework, we design Hierarchical Reward Modeling (HRM) to structure mixed reward types through conditional gating that reflects their logical dependencies. To enable efficient training, we further propose Dynamic Contrastive Policy Optimization (DCPO), which balances response quality with operational efficiency through dynamic trajectory selection based on reward and reasoning length. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our RL-trained agent, namely ChatShopBuddy, consistently outperforms larger models relying on generic reasoning, achieving superior stability rather than merely higher peaks. Our work provides valuable guidance for applying RL to real-world conversational agents.

Recent AI advancements, such as OpenAI's new models, are transforming LLMs into LRMs (Large Reasoning Models) that perform reasoning during inference, taking extra time and compute for higher-quality outputs. We aim to uncover the algorithmic framework for training LRMs. Methods like self-consistency, PRM, and AlphaZero suggest reasoning as guided search. We ask: what is the simplest, most scalable way to enable search in LLMs? We propose a post-training framework called Reinforcement Learning via Self-Play (RLSP). RLSP involves three steps: (1) supervised fine-tuning with human or synthetic demonstrations of the reasoning process, (2) using an exploration reward signal to encourage diverse and efficient reasoning behaviors, and (3) RL training with an outcome verifier to ensure correctness while preventing reward hacking. Our key innovation is to decouple exploration and correctness signals during PPO training, carefully balancing them to improve performance and efficiency. Empirical studies in the math domain show that RLSP improves reasoning. On the Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model, RLSP can boost performance by 23% in MATH-500 test set; On AIME 2024 math problems, Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct improved by 10% due to RLSP. However, a more important finding of this work is that the models trained using RLSP, even with the simplest exploration reward that encourages the model to take more intermediate steps, showed several emergent behaviors such as backtracking, exploration of ideas, and verification. These findings demonstrate that RLSP framework might be enough to enable emergence of complex reasoning abilities in LLMs when scaled. Lastly, we propose a theory as to why RLSP search strategy is more suitable for LLMs inspired by a remarkable result that says CoT provably increases computational power of LLMs, which grows as the number of steps in CoT li2024chain,merrill2023expresssive.

Large language model (LLM) powered AI agents have emerged as a promising paradigm for autonomous problem-solving, yet they continue to struggle with complex, multi-step real-world tasks that demand domain-specific procedural knowledge. Reusable agent skills, which encapsulate successful problem-solving strategies, offer a natural remedy by enabling agents to build on prior experience. However, curating such skills has largely remained a manual endeavor, requiring human experts to distill rich domain knowledge into actionable guidelines. In this work, we present Multi-agent INduction and Deduction for Skills (MIND-Skill), a framework that automatically induces generalizable skills from successful trajectories with robust quality guarantees. MIND-Skill consists of an induction agent which is tasked to abstract reusable skills from successful trajectories, and a deduction agent which aims to reconstruct trajectories by following the induced skills. To guarantee the quality of the generated skills, we introduce a reconstruction loss that compares input and reconstructed trajectories, an outcome loss that enforces the correctness of the reconstructed trajectories, and a rubric loss that assesses the documentation quality and regularizes the abstraction level of the generated skills according to predefined criteria. These textual losses are jointly optimized with TextGrad, and the resulting skills are evaluated on held-out tasks unseen during optimization. Experiments on AppWorld and BFCL-v3 show that MIND-Skill consistently outperforms concurrent skill generation methods.

We introduce the Diffusion Chain of Lateral Thought (DCoLT), a reasoning framework for diffusion language models. DCoLT treats each intermediate step in the reverse diffusion process as a latent "thinking" action and optimizes the entire reasoning trajectory to maximize the reward on the correctness of the final answer with outcome-based Reinforcement Learning (RL). Unlike traditional Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods that follow a causal, linear thinking process, DCoLT allows bidirectional, non-linear reasoning with no strict rule on grammatical correctness amid its intermediate steps of thought. We implement DCoLT on two representative Diffusion Language Models (DLMs). First, we choose SEDD as a representative continuous-time discrete diffusion model, where its concrete score derives a probabilistic policy to maximize the RL reward over the entire sequence of intermediate diffusion steps. We further consider the discrete-time masked diffusion language model -- LLaDA, and find that the order to predict and unmask tokens plays an essential role to optimize its RL action resulting from the ranking-based Unmasking Policy Module (UPM) defined by the Plackett-Luce model. Experiments on both math and code generation tasks show that using only public data and 16 H800 GPUs, DCoLT-reinforced DLMs outperform other DLMs trained by SFT or RL or even both. Notably, DCoLT-reinforced LLaDA boosts its reasoning accuracy by +9.8%, +5.7%, +11.4%, +19.5% on GSM8K, MATH, MBPP, and HumanEval.

Recent years have witnessed the rapid development of Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), which excel at collaborative decision-making and complex problem-solving. Recently, researchers have further investigated Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) frameworks, which enhance the reasoning and collaboration capabilities of MAS through information exchange and debate among multiple agents. However, existing approaches often rely on unguided initialization, causing agents to adopt identical reasoning paths that lead to the same errors. As a result, effective debate among agents is hindered, and the final outcome frequently degenerates into simple majority voting. To solve the above problem, in this paper, we introduce Dynamic Multi-Agent Debate (DynaDebate), which enhances the effectiveness of multi-agent debate through three key mechanisms: (1) Dynamic Path Generation and Allocation, which employs a dedicated Path Generation Agent to generate diverse and logical solution paths with adaptive redundancy; (2) Process-Centric Debate, which shifts the focus from surface-level outcome voting to rigorous step-by-step logic critique to ensure process correctness; (3) A Trigger-Based Verification Agent, which is activated upon disagreement and uses external tools to objectively resolve deadlocks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DynaDebate achieves superior performance across various benchmarks, surpassing existing state-of-the-art MAD methods.

Long context reasoning in large language models (LLMs) has demonstrated enhancement of their cognitive capabilities via chain-of-thought (CoT) inference. Training such models is usually done via reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) in reasoning based problems, like math and programming. However, RLVR is limited by several bottlenecks, such as, lack of dense reward, and inadequate sample efficiency. As a result, it requires significant compute resources in post-training phase. To overcome these limitations, in this work, we propose Semantic Soft Bootstrapping (SSB), a self-distillation technique, in which the same base language model plays the role of both teacher and student, but receives different semantic contexts about the correctness of its outcome at training time. The model is first prompted with a math problem and several rollouts are generated. From them, the correct and most common incorrect response are filtered, and then provided to the model in context to produce a more robust, step-by-step explanation with a verified final answer. This pipeline automatically curates a paired teacher-student training set from raw problem-answer data, without any human intervention. This generation process also produces a sequence of logits, which is what the student model tries to match in the training phase just from the bare question alone. In our experiment, Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct on GSM8K dataset via parameter-efficient fine-tuning. We then tested its accuracy on MATH500, and AIME2024 benchmarks. Our experiments show a jump of 10.6%, and 10% improvements in accuracy, respectively, over group relative policy optimization (GRPO), which is a commonly used RLVR algorithm. Our code is available at https://github.com/purbeshmitra/semantic-soft-bootstrapping, and the model, curated dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/purbeshmitra/semantic-soft-bootstrapping.

Outcome-reward reinforcement learning (RL) has proven effective at improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, standard RL assigns credit only at the level of the final answer, penalizing entire reasoning traces when the outcome is incorrect and uniformly reinforcing all steps when it is correct. As a result, correct intermediate steps may be discouraged in failed traces, while spurious steps may be reinforced in successful ones. We refer to this failure mode as the problem of credit assignment. While a natural remedy is to train a process reward model, accurately optimizing such models to identify corrective reasoning steps remains challenging. We introduce Intervention Training (InT), a training paradigm in which the model performs fine-grained credit assignment on its own reasoning traces by proposing short, targeted corrections that steer trajectories toward higher reward. Using reference solutions commonly available in mathematical reasoning datasets and exploiting the fact that verifying a model-generated solution is easier than generating a correct one from scratch, the model identifies the first error in its reasoning and proposes a single-step intervention to redirect the trajectory toward the correct solution. We then apply supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to the on-policy rollout up to the point of error concatenated with the intervention, localizing error to the specific step that caused failure. We show that the resulting model serves as a far better initialization for RL training. After running InT and subsequent fine-tuning with RL, we improve accuracy by nearly 14% over a 4B-parameter base model on IMO-AnswerBench, outperforming larger open-source models such as gpt-oss-20b.

Despite its crucial role in research experiments, code correctness is often presumed only on the basis of the perceived quality of results. This assumption comes with the risk of erroneous outcomes and potentially misleading findings. To address this issue, we posit that the current focus on reproducibility should go hand in hand with the emphasis on software quality. We present a case study in which we identify and fix three bugs in widely used implementations of the state-of-the-art Conformer architecture. Through experiments on speech recognition and translation in various languages, we demonstrate that the presence of bugs does not prevent the achievement of good and reproducible results, which however can lead to incorrect conclusions that potentially misguide future research. As a countermeasure, we propose a Code-quality Checklist and release pangoliNN, a library dedicated to testing neural models, with the goal of promoting coding best practices and improving research software quality within the NLP community.

We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can be used to simulate human participants in social-science studies. To do this, we run replications of 14 studies from the Many Labs 2 replication project with OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, colloquially known as GPT3.5. Based on our pre-registered analyses, we find that among the eight studies we could analyse, our GPT sample replicated 37.5% of the original results and 37.5% of the Many Labs 2 results. However, we were unable to analyse the remaining six studies due to an unexpected phenomenon we call the "correct answer" effect. Different runs of GPT3.5 answered nuanced questions probing political orientation, economic preference, judgement, and moral philosophy with zero or near-zero variation in responses: with the supposedly "correct answer." In one exploratory follow-up study, we found that a "correct answer" was robust to changing the demographic details that precede the prompt. In another, we found that most but not all "correct answers" were robust to changing the order of answer choices. One of our most striking findings occurred in our replication of the Moral Foundations Theory survey results, where we found GPT3.5 identifying as a political conservative in 99.6% of the cases, and as a liberal in 99.3% of the cases in the reverse-order condition. However, both self-reported 'GPT conservatives' and 'GPT liberals' showed right-leaning moral foundations. Our results cast doubts on the validity of using LLMs as a general replacement for human participants in the social sciences. Our results also raise concerns that a hypothetical AI-led future may be subject to a diminished diversity-of-thought.

AI agents are changing the requirements for document parsing. What matters is semantic correctness: parsed output must preserve the structure and meaning needed for autonomous decisions, including correct table structure, precise chart data, semantically meaningful formatting, and visual grounding. Existing benchmarks do not fully capture this setting for enterprise automation, relying on narrow document distributions and text-similarity metrics that miss agent-critical failures. We introduce ParseBench, a benchmark of {sim}2{,}000 human-verified pages from enterprise documents spanning insurance, finance, and government, organized around five capability dimensions: tables, charts, content faithfulness, semantic formatting, and visual grounding. Across 14 methods spanning vision-language models, specialized document parsers, and LlamaParse, the benchmark reveals a fragmented capability landscape: no method is consistently strong across all five dimensions. LlamaParse Agentic achieves the highest overall score at \agenticoverall\%, and the benchmark highlights the remaining capability gaps across current systems. Dataset and evaluation code are available on https://huggingface.co/datasets/llamaindex/ParseBench{HuggingFace} and https://github.com/run-llama/ParseBench{GitHub}.

Agentic retrieval-augmented reasoning pipelines are increasingly used to structure how large language models (LLMs) incorporate external evidence in clinical decision support. These systems iteratively retrieve curated domain knowledge and synthesize it into structured reports before answer selection. Although such pipelines can improve performance, their impact on reliability under model variability remains unclear. In real-world deployment, heterogeneous models may align, diverge, or synchronize errors in ways not captured by accuracy. We evaluated 34 LLMs on 169 expert-curated publicly available radiology questions, comparing zero-shot inference with a radiology-specific multi-step agentic retrieval condition in which all models received identical structured evidence reports derived from curated radiology knowledge. Agentic inference reduced inter-model decision dispersion (median entropy 0.48 vs. 0.13) and increased robustness of correctness across models (mean 0.74 vs. 0.81). Majority consensus also increased overall (P<0.001). Consensus strength and robust correctness remained correlated under both strategies (ho=0.88 for zero-shot; ho=0.87 for agentic), although high agreement did not guarantee correctness. Response verbosity showed no meaningful association with correctness. Among 572 incorrect outputs, 72% were associated with moderate or high clinically assessed severity, although inter-rater agreement was low (appa=0.02). Agentic retrieval therefore was associated with more concentrated decision distributions, stronger consensus, and higher cross-model robustness of correctness. These findings suggest that evaluating agentic systems through accuracy or agreement alone may not always be sufficient, and that complementary analyses of stability, cross-model robustness, and potential clinical impact are needed to characterize reliability under model variability.

Recent work has shown that asking language models to generate reasoning steps improves performance on many reasoning tasks. When moving beyond prompting, this raises the question of how we should supervise such models: outcome-based approaches which supervise the final result, or process-based approaches which supervise the reasoning process itself? Differences between these approaches might naturally be expected not just in final-answer errors but also in reasoning errors, which can be difficult to detect and are problematic in many real-world domains such as education. We run the first comprehensive comparison between process- and outcome-based approaches trained on a natural language task, GSM8K. We find that pure outcome-based supervision produces similar final-answer error rates with less label supervision. However, for correct reasoning steps we find it necessary to use process-based supervision or supervision from learned reward models that emulate process-based feedback. In total, we improve the previous best results from 16.8% to 12.7% final-answer error and 14.0% to 3.4% reasoning error among final-answer-correct solutions.

Recent progress in reasoning models suggests that generating plausible attempts for research-level mathematics may be within reach, but verification remains a bottleneck, consuming scarce expert time. We hypothesize that a meaningful solution should contain enough method-level information that, when applied to a neighborhood of related questions, it should yield better downstream performance than incorrect solutions. Building on this idea, we propose Consequence-Based Utility, an oracle-free evaluator that scores each candidate by testing its value as an in-context exemplar in solving related yet verifiable questions. Our approach is evaluated on an original set of research-level math problems, each paired with one expert-written solution and nine LLM-generated solutions. Notably, Consequence-Based Utility consistently outperforms reward models, generative reward models, and LLM judges on ranking quality. Specifically, for GPT-OSS-120B, it improves Acc@1 from 67.2 to 76.3 and AUC from 71.4 to 79.6, with similarly large AUC gains on GPT-OSS-20B (69.0 to 79.2). Furthermore, compared to LLM-Judges, it also exhibits a larger solver-evaluator gap, maintaining a stronger correct-wrong separation even on instances where the underlying solver often fails to solve.

Outcome-Based Education (OBE) emphasizes the development of specific competencies through student-centered learning. In this study, we reviewed the importance of OBE and implemented transformer-based models, particularly DistilBERT, to analyze an NLP dataset that includes student feedback. Our objective is to assess and improve educational outcomes. Our approach is better than other machine learning models because it uses the transformer's deep understanding of language context to classify sentiment better, giving better results across a wider range of matrices. Our work directly contributes to OBE's goal of achieving measurable outcomes by facilitating the identification of patterns in student learning experiences. We have also applied LIME (local interpretable model-agnostic explanations) to make sure that model predictions are clear. This gives us understandable information about how key terms affect sentiment. Our findings indicate that the combination of transformer models and LIME explanations results in a strong and straightforward framework for analyzing student feedback. This aligns more closely with the principles of OBE and ensures the improvement of educational practices through data-driven insights.

Deductive reasoning plays a pivotal role in the formulation of sound and cohesive arguments. It allows individuals to draw conclusions that logically follow, given the truth value of the information provided. Recent progress in the domain of large language models (LLMs) has showcased their capability in executing deductive reasoning tasks. Nonetheless, a significant portion of research primarily assesses the accuracy of LLMs in solving such tasks, often overlooking a deeper analysis of their reasoning behavior. In this study, we draw upon principles from cognitive psychology to examine inferential strategies employed by LLMs, through a detailed evaluation of their responses to propositional logic problems. Our findings indicate that LLMs display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans, including strategies like supposition following or chain construction. Moreover, our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning, with more advanced models tending to adopt strategies more frequently than less sophisticated ones. Importantly, we assert that a model's accuracy, that is the correctness of its final conclusion, does not necessarily reflect the validity of its reasoning process. This distinction underscores the necessity for more nuanced evaluation procedures in the field.

Personalized treatment effect estimates are often of interest in high-stakes applications -- thus, before deploying a model estimating such effects in practice, one needs to be sure that the best candidate from the ever-growing machine learning toolbox for this task was chosen. Unfortunately, due to the absence of counterfactual information in practice, it is usually not possible to rely on standard validation metrics for doing so, leading to a well-known model selection dilemma in the treatment effect estimation literature. While some solutions have recently been investigated, systematic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria is still lacking. In this paper, instead of attempting to declare a global `winner', we therefore empirically investigate success- and failure modes of different selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them, and provide interesting insights into the relative (dis)advantages of different criteria alongside desiderata for the design of further illuminating empirical studies in this context.

Generating accurate and calibrated confidence estimates is critical for deploying LLMs in high-stakes or user-facing applications, and remains an open challenge. Prior research has often framed confidence as a problem of eliciting a model's "self-knowledge", i.e., the ability of an LLM to judge whether its own answers are correct; this approach implicitly assumes that there is some privileged information about the answer's correctness that is accessible to the model itself. However, our experiments reveal that an LLM attempting to predict the correctness of its own outputs generally performs no better than an unrelated LLM. Moreover, we hypothesize that a key factor in building a "Correctness Model" (CM) is exposure to a target model's historical predictions. We propose multiple methods to inject this historical correctness information, creating a Generalized Correctness Model (GCM). We first show that GCMs can be trained on the correctness data from many LLMs and learn patterns for correctness prediction applicable across datasets and models. We then use CMs as a lens for studying the source of correctness prediction ability and its generalization, systematically controlling their training data and finding that answer phrasing is a strong predictor for correctness. We further explore alternative methods of injecting history without training an LLM, finding that including history as in-context examples can help improve correctness prediction, and post-hoc calibration can provide complementary reductions in calibration error. We evaluate GCMs based on Qwen3-8B across 5 model families and the MMLU and TriviaQA datasets, as well as on a downstream selective prediction task, finding that reliable LLM confidence estimation is a generalizable and model-agnostic skill learned by systematically encoding correctness history rather than a model-specific skill reliant on self-introspection.

Software is used in critical applications in our day-to-day life and it is important to ensure its correctness. One popular approach to assess correctness is to evaluate software on tests. If a test fails, it indicates a fault in the software under test; if all tests pass correctly, one may assume that the software is correct. However, the reliability of these results depends on the test suite considered, and there is a risk of false negatives (i.e. software that passes all available tests but contains bugs because some cases are not tested). Therefore, it is important to consider error-inducing test cases when evaluating software. To support data-driven creation of such a test-suite, which is especially of interest for testing software synthesized from large language models, we curate a dataset (Codehacks) of programming problems together with corresponding error-inducing test cases (i.e., "hacks"). This dataset is collected from the wild, in particular, from the Codeforces online judge platform. The dataset comprises 288,617 hacks for 5,578 programming problems, each with a natural language description, as well as the source code for 2,196 submitted solutions to these problems that can be broken with their corresponding hacks. Keywords: competitive programming, language model, dataset

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) often rely on generating intermediate reasoning steps to enhance accuracy. However, little work has examined how reasoning utility contributes to the final answer's correctness. Due to the stochastic nature of autoregressive generation, generating more context does not guarantee increased confidence in the answer. If we could predict, during generation, whether a reasoning step will be useful, we could stop early or prune ineffective steps, avoiding distractions in the final decision. We present an oracle study on MATH dataset, using Qwen2.5-32B and GPT-4o to generate reasoning chains, and then employing a separate model (Qwen3-8B) to quantify the utility of these chains for final accuracy. Specifically, we measure the model's uncertainty on the answer span Y at each reasoning step using conditional entropy (expected negative log-likelihood over the vocabulary) with context expanding step by step. Our results show a clear pattern: conditional entropy that decreases over steps is strongly associated with correct answers, whereas flat or increasing entropy often results in wrong answers. We also corroborate that incorrect reasoning paths tend to be longer than correct ones, suggesting that longer reasoning does not necessarily yield better outcomes. These findings serve as a foundation to inspire future work on designing efficient reasoning pipelines that detect and avoid unproductive reasoning early.

In the absence of abundant reliable annotations for challenging tasks and contexts, how can we expand the frontier of LLM capabilities with potentially wrong answers? We focus on two research questions: (1) Can LLMs generate reliable preferences among wrong options? And if so, (2) Would alignment with such wrong-over-wrong preferences be helpful? We employ methods based on self-consistency, token probabilities, and LLM-as-a-judge to elicit wrong-over-wrong preferences, and fine-tune language models with preference optimization approaches using these synthesized preferences. Extensive experiments with seven LLMs and eight datasets demonstrate that (1) LLMs do have preliminary capability in distinguishing various shades of wrong, achieving up to 20.9% higher performance than random guess; (2) Alignment with wrong-over-wrong preferences helps LLMs to produce less wrong and sometimes even outright correct answers, while overall improving model calibration.

Reasoning models have achieved remarkable performance on tasks like math and logical reasoning thanks to their ability to search during reasoning. However, they still suffer from overthinking, often performing unnecessary reasoning steps even after reaching the correct answer. This raises the question: can models evaluate the correctness of their intermediate answers during reasoning? In this work, we study whether reasoning models encode information about answer correctness through probing the model's hidden states. The resulting probe can verify intermediate answers with high accuracy and produces highly calibrated scores. Additionally, we find models' hidden states encode correctness of future answers, enabling early prediction of the correctness before the intermediate answer is fully formulated. We then use the probe as a verifier to decide whether to exit reasoning at intermediate answers during inference, reducing the number of inference tokens by 24\% without compromising performance. These findings confirm that reasoning models do encode a notion of correctness yet fail to exploit it, revealing substantial untapped potential to enhance their efficiency.

Recent failures such as Google Gemini generating people of color in Nazi-era uniforms illustrate how AI outputs can be factually plausible yet socially harmful. AI models are increasingly evaluated for "fairness," yet existing benchmarks often conflate two fundamentally different dimensions: factual correctness and normative fairness. A model may generate responses that are factually accurate but socially unfair, or conversely, appear fair while distorting factual reality. We argue that identifying the boundary between fact and fair is essential for meaningful fairness evaluation. We introduce Fact-or-Fair, a benchmark with (i) objective queries aligned with descriptive, fact-based judgments, and (ii) subjective queries aligned with normative, fairness-based judgments. Our queries are constructed from 19 statistics and are grounded in cognitive psychology, drawing on representativeness bias, attribution bias, and ingroup-outgroup bias to explain why models often misalign fact and fairness. Experiments across ten frontier models reveal different levels of fact-fair trade-offs. By reframing fairness evaluation, we provide both a new theoretical lens and a practical benchmark to advance the responsible model assessments. Our test suite is publicly available at https://github.com/uclanlp/Fact-or-Fair.

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly rely on external tools such as search engines to solve complex agentic tasks that require reasoning and external knowledge retrieval. Recently, reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has demonstrated its effectiveness in advancing capabilities of LLMs by rewarding the final answers via outcome rewards. While straightforward to supervise, outcome rewards only provide sparse signals and delayed feedback, which limits their effectiveness on long trajectories. Process rewards address this by evaluating intermediate steps, providing fine-grained supervision and encouraging grounded problem solving. However, it is notoriously hard to annotate step-wise labels, especially in non-verifiable process without "golden" answers. Furthermore, step-wise judgment requires the balance between local quality with contribution to the final outcome, as optimizing towards higher process reward may not always align with better final outcomes. To address the above challenges, we introduce Principle Process Reward (PPR), an RL approach that unifies principled step-level assessment and outcome verification. We train a principle-based reward model to improve the transparency and reliability of process evaluation, and further introduce a Reward Normalization (ReNorm) strategy to calibrate outcome and process rewards. Experiment results show that PPR achieves state-of-the-art performance across a wide range of benchmarks, demonstrating its impressive robustness and generalization. Our code and model collection is available in this link.

Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but for many of the most challenging and interesting QA examples, current answer correctness (AC) metrics do not align with human judgments, particularly verbose, free form answers from large language models (LLM). There are two challenges: a lack of data and that models are too big. LLM based scorers correlate better with humans, but this expensive task has only been tested on limited QA datasets. We rectify these issues by providing clear guidelines for evaluating machine QA adopted from human QA contests. We also introduce Precise ANswer correctness Determination and Adjudication (PANDA), a small, efficient, deterministic AC classifier (812 KB) that more accurately evaluates answer correctness.

We present the findings of "The Alzheimer's Disease Prediction Of Longitudinal Evolution" (TADPOLE) Challenge, which compared the performance of 92 algorithms from 33 international teams at predicting the future trajectory of 219 individuals at risk of Alzheimer's disease. Challenge participants were required to make a prediction, for each month of a 5-year future time period, of three key outcomes: clinical diagnosis, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subdomain (ADAS-Cog13), and total volume of the ventricles. The methods used by challenge participants included multivariate linear regression, machine learning methods such as support vector machines and deep neural networks, as well as disease progression models. No single submission was best at predicting all three outcomes. For clinical diagnosis and ventricle volume prediction, the best algorithms strongly outperform simple baselines in predictive ability. However, for ADAS-Cog13 no single submitted prediction method was significantly better than random guesswork. Two ensemble methods based on taking the mean and median over all predictions, obtained top scores on almost all tasks. Better than average performance at diagnosis prediction was generally associated with the additional inclusion of features from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). On the other hand, better performance at ventricle volume prediction was associated with inclusion of summary statistics, such as the slope or maxima/minima of biomarkers. TADPOLE's unique results suggest that current prediction algorithms provide sufficient accuracy to exploit biomarkers related to clinical diagnosis and ventricle volume, for cohort refinement in clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease. However, results call into question the usage of cognitive test scores for patient selection and as a primary endpoint in clinical trials.

The success of Deepseek-R1 has drawn the LLM community's attention to reinforcement learning (RL) methods like GRPO. However, such rule-based 0/1 outcome reward methods lack the capability to regulate the intermediate reasoning processes during chain-of-thought (CoT) generation, leading to severe overthinking phenomena. In response, recent studies have designed reward functions to reinforce models' behaviors in producing shorter yet correct completions. Nevertheless, we observe that these length-penalty reward functions exacerbate RL training instability: as the completion length decreases, model accuracy abruptly collapses, often occurring early in training. To address this issue, we propose a simple yet effective solution GRPO-lambda, an efficient and stabilized variant of GRPO, which dynamically adjusts the reward strategy by monitoring the correctness ratio among completions within each query-sampled group. A low correctness ratio indicates the need to avoid length penalty that compromises CoT quality, triggering a switch to length-agnostic 0/1 rewards that prioritize reasoning capability. A high ratio maintains length penalties to boost efficiency. Experimental results show that our approach avoids training instability caused by length penalty while maintaining the optimal accuracy-efficiency trade-off. On the GSM8K, GPQA, MATH-500, AMC 2023, and AIME 2024 benchmarks, it improves average accuracy by 1.48% while reducing CoT sequence length by 47.3%.

This paper investigates the mathematical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) using 50 newly constructed high-school-level word problems. Unlike prior studies that focus solely on answer correctness, we rigorously analyze both final answers and solution steps to identify reasoning failures. Evaluating eight state-of-the-art models - including Mixtral, Llama, Gemini, GPT-4o, and OpenAI's o1 variants - we find that while newer models (e.g., o3-mini, deepseek-r1) achieve higher accuracy, all models exhibit errors in spatial reasoning, strategic planning, and arithmetic, sometimes producing correct answers through flawed logic. Common failure modes include unwarranted assumptions, over-reliance on numerical patterns, and difficulty translating physical intuition into mathematical steps. Manual analysis reveals that models struggle with problems requiring multi-step deduction or real-world knowledge, despite possessing broad mathematical knowledge. Our results underscore the importance of evaluating reasoning processes, not just answers, and caution against overestimating LLMs' problem-solving proficiency. The study highlights persistent gaps in LLMs' generalization abilities, emphasizing the need for targeted improvements in structured reasoning and constraint handling.

LLM-based Triton kernel generation has attracted significant interest, yet a fundamental empirical question remains unanswered: where does this capability break down, and why? We present KernelBench-X, a benchmark designed to answer this question through category-aware evaluation of correctness and hardware efficiency across 176 tasks in 15 categories. Our systematic comparison of five representative methods yields three main findings. First, task structure determines correctness more than method design. Category explains nearly three times more variance in semantic correctness than method (9.4% vs 3.3% explained deviance), and 72% of Fusion tasks fail across all five methods while Math tasks are solved consistently. Second, iterative refinement improves correctness, but not performance. Across GEAK iterations, compile rate rises from 52.3% to 68.8% while average speedup declines from 1.58times to 1.44times; newly rescued kernels consistently underperform persistently correct ones (1.16times vs 1.58times speedup in round~0to1). Third, correctness does not imply efficiency. 46.6% of correct kernels are slower than the PyTorch eager baseline, and cross-hardware speedup variance reaches 21.4times. Besides, quantization remains completely unsolved (0/30 successes) despite non-trivial compilation rates, revealing systematic misunderstanding of numerical computation contracts rather than surface-level syntax errors. These findings suggest that future progress depends on handling global coordination, explicitly modeling numerical precision, and incorporating hardware efficiency into generation. The code is available at https://github.com/BonnieW05/KernelBenchX

Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) is often used to fix hallucinations and provide up-to-date knowledge for large language models (LLMs). However, in cases when the LLM alone incorrectly answers a question, does providing the correct retrieved content always fix the error? Conversely, in cases where the retrieved content is incorrect, does the LLM know to ignore the wrong information, or does it recapitulate the error? To answer these questions, we systematically analyze the tug-of-war between a LLM's internal knowledge (i.e. its prior) and the retrieved information in settings when they disagree. We test GPT-4 and other LLMs on question-answering abilities across datasets with and without reference documents. As expected, providing the correct retrieved information fixes most model mistakes (94% accuracy). However, when the reference document is perturbed with increasing levels of wrong values, the LLM is more likely to recite the incorrect, modified information when its internal prior is weaker but is more resistant when its prior is stronger. Similarly, we also find that the more the modified information deviates from the model's prior, the less likely the model is to prefer it. These results highlight an underlying tension between a model's prior knowledge and the information presented in reference documents.

Interpretability research now offers a variety of techniques for identifying abstract internal mechanisms in neural networks. Can such techniques be used to predict how models will behave on out-of-distribution examples? In this work, we provide a positive answer to this question. Through a diverse set of language modeling tasks--including symbol manipulation, knowledge retrieval, and instruction following--we show that the most robust features for correctness prediction are those that play a distinctive causal role in the model's behavior. Specifically, we propose two methods that leverage causal mechanisms to predict the correctness of model outputs: counterfactual simulation (checking whether key causal variables are realized) and value probing (using the values of those variables to make predictions). Both achieve high AUC-ROC in distribution and outperform methods that rely on causal-agnostic features in out-of-distribution settings, where predicting model behaviors is more crucial. Our work thus highlights a novel and significant application for internal causal analysis of language models.

Noise plagues many numerical datasets, where the recorded values in the data may fail to match the true underlying values due to reasons including: erroneous sensors, data entry/processing mistakes, or imperfect human estimates. We consider general regression settings with covariates and a potentially corrupted response whose observed values may contain errors. By accounting for various uncertainties, we introduced veracity scores that distinguish between genuine errors and natural data fluctuations, conditioned on the available covariate information in the dataset. We propose a simple yet efficient filtering procedure for eliminating potential errors, and establish theoretical guarantees for our method. We also contribute a new error detection benchmark involving 5 regression datasets with real-world numerical errors (for which the true values are also known). In this benchmark and additional simulation studies, our method identifies incorrect values with better precision/recall than other approaches.

In this position paper, we argue that the classical evaluation on Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks using annotated benchmarks is in trouble. The worst kind of data contamination happens when a Large Language Model (LLM) is trained on the test split of a benchmark, and then evaluated in the same benchmark. The extent of the problem is unknown, as it is not straightforward to measure. Contamination causes an overestimation of the performance of a contaminated model in a target benchmark and associated task with respect to their non-contaminated counterparts. The consequences can be very harmful, with wrong scientific conclusions being published while other correct ones are discarded. This position paper defines different levels of data contamination and argues for a community effort, including the development of automatic and semi-automatic measures to detect when data from a benchmark was exposed to a model, and suggestions for flagging papers with conclusions that are compromised by data contamination.

While there are numerous benchmarks comparing the performance of modern language models (LMs), end-task evaluations often conflate notions of *factual accuracy* ("truth") and *reasoning ability* ("rationality", or "honesty" in the sense of correctly reporting implications of beliefs). Our goal is a dataset that clearly distinguishes these two notions. Our approach is to leverage and extend a collection of human-annotated *entailment trees*, engineered to express both good and bad chains of reasoning, and using a mixture of true and false facts, in particular including counterfactual examples, to avoid belief bias (also known as the "content effect"). The resulting dataset, called BaRDa, contains 3000 entailments (1787 valid, 1213 invalid), using 6681 true and 2319 false statements. Testing on four GPT-series models, GPT3(curie)/GPT3(davinici)/3.5/4, we find factual accuracy (truth) scores of 74.1/80.6/82.6/87.1 and reasoning accuracy scores of 63.1/78.0/71.8/79.2. This shows the clear progression of models towards improved factual accuracy and entailment reasoning, and the dataset provides a new benchmark that more cleanly separates and quantifies these two notions.

How do multi-turn reasoning systems fail? The expected answer is logical contradiction, in which the system's maintained state becomes unsatisfiable. We show that the dominant mode is instead satisfiable drift, where the internal state stays consistent while the returned answer silently violates prior commitments. We build DRIFT-Bench (Decomposing Reasoning Into Failure Types), a solver-instrumented benchmark of 816 test problems across three constraint domains, and evaluate four methods on it across four open-weight models (8B-120B parameters). MUS-Repair, which feeds minimal unsatisfiable subsets back to the generator, is strongest in every setting (+1.8 to +15.0 pp over the best non-MUS baseline). But the central finding is what repair leaves behind. After structured feedback, models rarely contradict themselves. They forget. Residual errors are 98-100% satisfiable drift across all settings, while contradiction drops to near zero. Reliable multi-turn systems must separately validate that the returned answer respects the maintained state. Code is available at https://github.com/kaons-research/drift-bench.

Long-horizon LLM agents depend on intermediate information-gathering turns, yet training feedback is usually observed only at the final answer, because process-level rewards require high-quality human annotation. Existing turn-level shaping methods reward turns that increase the likelihood of a gold answer, but they require answer supervision or stable task-specific verifiers. Conversely, label-free RL methods extract self-signals from output distributions, but mainly at the answer or trajectory level and therefore cannot assign credit to intermediate turns. We propose Self-Induced Outcome Potential (SIOP), which treats semantic clusters of final answers as latent future outcome states for potential-based turn-level credit assignment. For each query, SIOP samples multiple rollouts, clusters final answers into semantic outcome modes, and builds a reliability-aware target distribution over these states. It then rewards turns for increasing posterior support for reliable future states using a tractable cluster-level approximation. The objective generalizes information-potential shaping from gold-answer supervision to settings without task-specific gold verifiers while avoiding the broadcasted rollout-level advantages used by standard GRPO. We formalize the framework, characterize its supervised gold-answer limit, and show that SIOP improves average performance over verifier-free outcome-level baselines on seven search-augmented agentic reasoning benchmarks while approaching a gold-supervised outcome baseline. Code is available at https://github.com/dl-m9/SIOP.git.

Agentic reinforcement learning requires assigning credit to environment-facing actions such as searches, clicks, edits, navigation commands, and object interactions. Standard GRPO uses the final verifier outcome as a uniform advantage over all action tokens. This outcome signal is useful but structurally incomplete: it punishes useful exploration in failed rollouts and reinforces redundant or regressive actions in successful rollouts. We propose TRIAGE, a role-typed credit assignment framework that adds a semantic role axis to outcome credit. A structured judge classifies each segment as decisive progress, useful exploration, no-progress infrastructure, or regression, and a fixed role-conditioned rule maps these labels to bounded segment-level process rewards. This keeps verifier outcomes as the source of optimization direction while correcting the two main blind spots of outcome-only credit. We further show that role-conditioned credit is the optimal segment-level correction expressible from role labels alone -- a projection of the per-segment advantage residual onto the role variable -- so that the fixed role constants reduce advantage estimation error whenever the judge is reliable, and we connect this to lower-variance policy gradients. Across ALFWorld, Search-QA, and WebShop, TRIAGE improves success rates over GRPO for two policy models and outperforms both a scalar judge-derived process reward and an outcome-supervised shared-backbone value baseline. Ablations show that the gain comes from role typing rather than merely adding dense rewards: reliable detection of regression inside successful trajectories is the dominant contributor, while exploration credit provides a consistent secondary gain; on completed ALFWorld and WebShop rollouts, TRIAGE also reduces environment-facing turns by an additional 10.4% and 14.8% relative to GRPO.

Large language models (LLMs) are trained to imitate humans to explain human decisions. However, do LLMs explain themselves? Can they help humans build mental models of how LLMs process different inputs? To answer these questions, we propose to evaluate counterfactual simulatability of natural language explanations: whether an explanation can enable humans to precisely infer the model's outputs on diverse counterfactuals of the explained input. For example, if a model answers "yes" to the input question "Can eagles fly?" with the explanation "all birds can fly", then humans would infer from the explanation that it would also answer "yes" to the counterfactual input "Can penguins fly?". If the explanation is precise, then the model's answer should match humans' expectations. We implemented two metrics based on counterfactual simulatability: precision and generality. We generated diverse counterfactuals automatically using LLMs. We then used these metrics to evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs (e.g., GPT-4) on two tasks: multi-hop factual reasoning and reward modeling. We found that LLM's explanations have low precision and that precision does not correlate with plausibility. Therefore, naively optimizing human approvals (e.g., RLHF) may not be a sufficient solution.

Access to the right evidence does not guarantee that large language models (LLMs) will reason with it correctly. This gap between retrieval and reasoning is especially concerning in clinical settings, where outputs must align with structured protocols. We study this gap using Written Exposure Therapy (WET) guidelines as a testbed. In evaluating model responses to curated clinician-vetted questions, we find that errors persist even when authoritative passages are provided. To address this, we propose an evaluation framework that measures accuracy, consistency, and fidelity of reasoning. Our results highlight both the potential and the risks: retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can constrain outputs, but safe deployment requires assessing reasoning as rigorously as retrieval.

Large language models (LLMs) have experienced notable advancements in generating coherent and contextually relevant responses. However, hallucinations - incorrect or unfounded claims - are still prevalent, prompting the creation of automated metrics to detect these in LLM outputs. Our contributions include: introducing ChainPoll, an innovative hallucination detection method that excels compared to its counterparts, and unveiling RealHall, a refined collection of benchmark datasets to assess hallucination detection metrics from recent studies. While creating RealHall, we assessed tasks and datasets from previous hallucination detection studies and observed that many are not suitable for the potent LLMs currently in use. Overcoming this, we opted for four datasets challenging for modern LLMs and pertinent to real-world scenarios. Using RealHall, we conducted a comprehensive comparison of ChainPoll with numerous hallucination metrics from recent studies. Our findings indicate that ChainPoll outperforms in all RealHall benchmarks, achieving an overall AUROC of 0.781. This surpasses the next best theoretical method by 11% and exceeds industry standards by over 23%. Additionally, ChainPoll is cost-effective and offers greater transparency than other metrics. We introduce two novel metrics to assess LLM hallucinations: Adherence and Correctness. Adherence is relevant to Retrieval Augmented Generation workflows, evaluating an LLM's analytical capabilities within given documents and contexts. In contrast, Correctness identifies logical and reasoning errors.

While self-correction has shown promise in improving LLM outputs in terms of style and quality (e.g. Chen et al., 2023; Madaan et al., 2023), recent attempts to self-correct logical or reasoning errors often cause correct answers to become incorrect, resulting in worse performances overall (Huang et al., 2023). In this paper, we break down the self-correction process into two core components: mistake finding and output correction. For mistake finding, we release BIG-Bench Mistake, a dataset of logical mistakes in Chain-of-Thought reasoning traces. We provide benchmark numbers for several state-of-the-art LLMs, and demonstrate that LLMs generally struggle with finding logical mistakes. For output correction, we propose a backtracking method which provides large improvements when given information on mistake location. We construe backtracking as a lightweight alternative to reinforcement learning methods, and show that it remains effective with a reward model at 60-70% accuracy.

Recent breakthroughs in large language models (LLMs) have led to notable successes in complex reasoning tasks, such as mathematical problem solving. A common strategy for improving performance is parallel thinking, in which multiple reasoning traces are generated and the final prediction is made using aggregation schemes like majority voting or best-of-N decoding. However, two key challenges persist. First, multi-sample decoding incurs substantial inference latency, especially for long-form outputs. Second, effective mechanisms for reliably assessing the correctness of individual reasoning traces are still limited. To address these challenges, we introduce One-Token Verification (OTV), a computational method that estimates reasoning correctness in a single forward pass during generation. OTV is activated by a learnable token and integrated into the LLM via low-rank adaptation to probe internal reasoning signals through the key-value cache, supporting token-level correctness estimation at any stage of generation without disrupting primary reasoning. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that OTV consistently surpasses existing verifiers. Additionally, OTV reduces token usage by up to 90% through correctness-guided early termination, prioritizing shorter, more reliable solutions.

Through reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), large language models have achieved substantial progress in domains with easily verifiable outcomes, such as mathematics and coding. However, when applied to more complex tasks like open-domain question answering, RLVR faces significant challenges due to the difficulty of verifying correctness. The nuanced and ambiguous nature of real-world knowledge makes it difficult to reliably evaluate correctness in these settings, necessitating further abilities that extend beyond mere logical consistency to encompass an understanding and assessment of both external and internal knowledge. Recent work has primarily focused on improving faithfulness, defined as semantic alignment with supporting documents, which can cause models to rely excessively on external sources and diminish their capacity for critical assessment. To address this, we propose the Thinking-supervised Reward Model (TRM), which incorporates sentence-level thinking supervision to endow reward models with critical thinking abilities. Given a query, answer, and supporting documents, TRM first assesses the faithfulness of each answer sentence to the supporting documents, and then applies a reasoning step to evaluate sentence-level correctness. By structuring reward modeling as a sequence of faithfulness, reasoning, and correctness evaluations, TRM encourages models to critically assess and leverage both external and internal knowledge. Experiments on reward signals demonstrate that TRM substantially improves the identification of incorrect sentences, and incorporating TRM into policy optimization leads to significant gains in both answer correctness and usefulness.

Current question-answering benchmarks predominantly focus on accuracy in realizable prediction tasks. Conditioned on a question and answer-key, does the most likely token match the ground truth? Such benchmarks necessarily fail to evaluate LLMs' ability to quantify ground-truth outcome uncertainty. In this work, we focus on the use of LLMs as risk scores for unrealizable prediction tasks. We introduce folktexts, a software package to systematically generate risk scores using LLMs, and evaluate them against US Census data products. A flexible API enables the use of different prompting schemes, local or web-hosted models, and diverse census columns that can be used to compose custom prediction tasks. We evaluate 17 recent LLMs across five proposed benchmark tasks. We find that zero-shot risk scores produced by multiple-choice question-answering have high predictive signal but are widely miscalibrated. Base models consistently overestimate outcome uncertainty, while instruction-tuned models underestimate uncertainty and produce over-confident risk scores. In fact, instruction-tuning polarizes answer distribution regardless of true underlying data uncertainty. This reveals a general inability of instruction-tuned LLMs to express data uncertainty using multiple-choice answers. A separate experiment using verbalized chat-style risk queries yields substantially improved calibration across instruction-tuned models. These differences in ability to quantify data uncertainty cannot be revealed in realizable settings, and highlight a blind-spot in the current evaluation ecosystem that folktexts covers.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved significant progress in solving complex reasoning tasks by Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR). This advancement is also inseparable from the oversight automated by reliable verifiers. However, current outcome-based verifiers (OVs) are unable to inspect the unreliable intermediate steps in the long reasoning chains of thought (CoTs). Meanwhile, current process-based verifiers (PVs) have difficulties in reliably detecting errors in the complex long CoTs, limited by the scarcity of high-quality annotations due to the prohibitive costs of human annotations. Therefore, we propose the Outcome-based Process Verifier (OPV), which verifies the rationale process of summarized outcomes from long CoTs to achieve both accurate and efficient verification and enable large-scale annotation. To empower the proposed verifier, we adopt an iterative active learning framework with expert annotations to progressively improve the verification capability of OPV with fewer annotation costs. Specifically, in each iteration, the most uncertain cases of the current best OPV are annotated and then subsequently used to train a new OPV through Rejection Fine-Tuning (RFT) and RLVR for the next round. Extensive experiments demonstrate OPV's superior performance and broad applicability. It achieves new state-of-the-art results on our held-out OPV-Bench, outperforming much larger open-source models such as Qwen3-Max-Preview with an F1 score of 83.1 compared to 76.3. Furthermore, OPV effectively detects false positives within synthetic dataset, closely align with expert assessment. When collaborating with policy models, OPV consistently yields performance gains, e.g., raising the accuracy of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B from 55.2% to 73.3% on AIME2025 as the compute budget scales.

Reasoning failures in large language models (LLMs) are typically measured only at the end of a generation, yet many failures manifest as a process-level breakdown: the model "loses the thread" mid-reasoning. We study whether such breakdowns are detectable from inference-time observables available in standard APIs (token log probabilities), without any training or fine-tuning. We define a simple instability signal that combines consecutive-step distributional shift (JSD) and uncertainty (entropy), summarize each trace by its peak instability strength, and show that this signal reliably predicts failure. Across GSM8K and HotpotQA, instability strength predicts wrong answers with above-chance AUC and yields monotonic bucket-level accuracy decline at scale across model sizes. Crucially, we show that instability is not uniformly harmful: early instability can reflect subsequent stabilization and a correct final answer (corrective instability), whereas late instability is more often followed by failure (destructive instability), even at comparable peak magnitudes, indicating that recoverability depends not only on how strongly the distribution changes but also on when such changes occur relative to the remaining decoding horizon. The method is model-agnostic, training-free, and reproducible, and is presented as a diagnostic lens rather than a corrective or control mechanism.

In recent years, large language models have greatly improved in their ability to perform complex multi-step reasoning. However, even state-of-the-art models still regularly produce logical mistakes. To train more reliable models, we can turn either to outcome supervision, which provides feedback for a final result, or process supervision, which provides feedback for each intermediate reasoning step. Given the importance of training reliable models, and given the high cost of human feedback, it is important to carefully compare the both methods. Recent work has already begun this comparison, but many questions still remain. We conduct our own investigation, finding that process supervision significantly outperforms outcome supervision for training models to solve problems from the challenging MATH dataset. Our process-supervised model solves 78% of problems from a representative subset of the MATH test set. Additionally, we show that active learning significantly improves the efficacy of process supervision. To support related research, we also release PRM800K, the complete dataset of 800,000 step-level human feedback labels used to train our best reward model.

As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose v_{bal}, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.

An abundance of datasets and availability of reliable evaluation metrics have resulted in strong progress in factoid question answering (QA). This progress, however, does not easily transfer to the task of long-form QA, where the goal is to answer questions that require in-depth explanations. The hurdles include (i) a lack of high-quality data, and (ii) the absence of a well-defined notion of the answer's quality. In this work, we address these problems by (i) releasing a novel dataset and a task that we call ASQA (Answer Summaries for Questions which are Ambiguous); and (ii) proposing a reliable metric for measuring performance on ASQA. Our task focuses on factoid questions that are ambiguous, that is, have different correct answers depending on interpretation. Answers to ambiguous questions should synthesize factual information from multiple sources into a long-form summary that resolves the ambiguity. In contrast to existing long-form QA tasks (such as ELI5), ASQA admits a clear notion of correctness: a user faced with a good summary should be able to answer different interpretations of the original ambiguous question. We use this notion of correctness to define an automated metric of performance for ASQA. Our analysis demonstrates an agreement between this metric and human judgments, and reveals a considerable gap between human performance and strong baselines.

Mathematical reasoning models are widely deployed in education, automated tutoring, and decision support systems despite exhibiting fundamental computational instabilities. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art models (Qwen2.5-Math-7B) achieve 61% accuracy through a mixture of reliable and unreliable reasoning pathways: 18.4% of correct predictions employ stable, faithful reasoning while 81.6% emerge through computationally inconsistent pathways. Additionally, 8.8% of all predictions are silent failures -- confident yet incorrect outputs. Through comprehensive analysis using novel faithfulness metrics, we reveal: (1) reasoning quality shows weak negative correlation with correctness (r=-0.21, p=0.002), reflecting a binary classification threshold artifact rather than a monotonic inverse relationship; (2) scaling from 1.5B to 7B parameters (4.7x increase) provides zero accuracy benefit on our evaluated subset (6% of GSM8K), requiring validation on the complete benchmark; and (3) latent reasoning employs diverse computational strategies, with ~20% sharing CoT-like patterns. These findings highlight that benchmark accuracy can mask computational unreliability, demanding evaluation reforms measuring stability beyond single-sample metrics.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks that require complex reasoning. Most benchmarks focus on final outcomes but overlook the intermediate reasoning steps - such as planning, revision, and decision making under resource constraints. We argue that measuring these internal processes is essential for understanding model behavior and improving reliability. We propose using strategic games as a natural evaluation environment: closed, rule-based systems with clear states, limited resources, and automatic feedback. We introduce a framework that evaluates LLMs along three core dimensions: planning, revision, and resource-constrained decision making. To operationalize this, we define metrics beyond win rate, including overcorrection risk rate, correction success rate, improvement slope, and over-budget ratio. In 4320 adversarial rounds across 12 leading models, ChatGPT-o3-mini achieves the top composite score, with a win rate of 74.7 percent, a correction success rate of 78.6 percent, and an improvement slope of 0.041. By contrast, Qwen-Plus, despite an overcorrection risk rate of 81.6 percent, wins only 25.6 percent of its matches - primarily due to excessive resource use. We also observe a negative correlation between overcorrection risk rate and correction success rate (Pearson r = -0.51, p = 0.093), suggesting that more frequent edits do not always improve outcomes. Our findings highlight the value of assessing not only what LLMs decide but how they arrive at those decisions

Language models have demonstrated remarkable performance in solving reasoning tasks; however, even the strongest models still occasionally make reasoning mistakes. Recently, there has been active research aimed at improving reasoning accuracy, particularly by using pretrained language models to "self-correct" their mistakes via multi-round prompting. In this paper, we follow this line of work but focus on understanding the usefulness of incorporating "error-correction" data directly into the pretraining stage. This data consists of erroneous solution steps immediately followed by their corrections. Using a synthetic math dataset, we show promising results: this type of pretrain data can help language models achieve higher reasoning accuracy directly (i.e., through simple auto-regression, without multi-round prompting) compared to pretraining on the same amount of error-free data. We also delve into many details, such as (1) how this approach differs from beam search, (2) how such data can be prepared, (3) whether masking is needed on the erroneous tokens, (4) the amount of error required, (5) whether such data can be deferred to the fine-tuning stage, and many others.

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on reasoning benchmarks via reinforcement learning requires a specific reward function, often binary, for each benchmark. This comes with two potential limitations: the need to design the reward, and the potentially sparse nature of binary rewards. Here, we systematically investigate rewards derived from the probability or log-probability of emitting the reference answer (or any other prompt continuation present in the data), which have the advantage of not relying on specific verifiers and being available at scale. Several recent works have advocated for the use of similar rewards (e.g., VeriFree, JEPO, RLPR, NOVER). We systematically compare variants of likelihood-based rewards with standard baselines, testing performance both on standard mathematical reasoning benchmarks, and on long-form answers where no external verifier is available. We find that using the log-probability of the reference answer as the reward for chain-of-thought (CoT) learning is the only option that performs well in all setups. This reward is also consistent with the next-token log-likelihood loss used during pretraining. In verifiable settings, log-probability rewards bring comparable or better success rates than reinforcing with standard binary rewards, and yield much better perplexity. In non-verifiable settings, they perform on par with SFT. On the other hand, methods based on probability, such as VeriFree, flatline on non-verifiable settings due to vanishing probabilities of getting the correct answer. Overall, this establishes log-probability rewards as a viable method for CoT fine-tuning, bridging the short, verifiable and long, non-verifiable answer settings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can correct their self-generated responses, but a decline in accuracy after self-correction is also witnessed. To have a deeper understanding of self-correction, we endeavor to decompose, evaluate, and analyze the self-correction behaviors of LLMs. By enumerating and analyzing answer correctness before and after self-correction, we decompose the self-correction capability into confidence (being confident to correct answers) and critique (turning wrong answers to correct) capabilities, and propose two metrics from a probabilistic perspective to measure these 2 capabilities, along with another metric for overall self-correction capability evaluation. Based on our decomposition and evaluation metrics, we conduct extensive experiments and draw some empirical conclusions. For example, we find different models can exhibit distinct behaviors: some models are confident while others are more critical. We also find the trade-off between the two capabilities (i.e. improving one can lead to a decline in the other) when manipulating model self-correction behavior by prompts or in-context learning. Further, we find a simple yet efficient strategy to improve self-correction capability by transforming Supervision Fine-Tuning (SFT) data format, and our strategy outperforms vanilla SFT in both capabilities and achieves much higher accuracy after self-correction. Our code will be publicly available on GitHub.

Reliable assessment of the abilities of large audio language models (LALMs) is essential to advancing the state of the art. As benchmarks rapidly evolve to incorporate complex reasoning and subjective tasks, they increasingly necessitate open-ended responses from LALMs. We present Open-ended Response Correctness Assessment (ORCA) -- a reliable and lightweight model-based approach for answer correctness and disagreement modeling. We employ a three-stage annotation pipeline combining human judgment, structured feedback, and human-AI correction, yielding 9,663 annotations across 3,699 question-answer pairs from 15 LALMs on three audio understanding and reasoning benchmarks (achieving a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.82). Our experiments employing curriculum learning show that ORCA models achieve a Spearman correlation of 0.91 with average human correctness ratings on seen benchmarks and generalize to unseen benchmarks with a score of 0.85, outperforming several LLM judge baselines including Gemini 2.5 Flash. Furthermore, we demonstrate that ORCA's predicted variance correlates strongly with human disagreement, allowing it to effectively identify problematic benchmark items.

Different from its counterpart outcome reward models (ORMs), which evaluate the entire responses, a process reward model (PRM) scores a reasoning trajectory step by step, providing denser and more fine grained rewards. However, training a PRM requires labels annotated at every intermediate step, presenting significant challenges for both manual and automatic data collection. This paper aims to address this challenge. Both theoretically and empirically, we show that an implicit PRM can be obtained at no additional cost, by simply training an ORM on the cheaper response-level labels. The only assumption is to parameterize the outcome reward as the log-likelihood ratios of the policy and reference models, which can be optimized regardless of the specific choice of loss objectives. In experiments, we instantiate our implicit PRMs with various objectives and evaluate their performance on MATH. We show that our implicit PRM outperforms a strong MCTS-based baseline \'a la Math-Shepherd using less than 1/38 of the training data. Its performance can be further improved with majority voting. We further find that scaling up instructions and responses benefits our implicit PRM, and the latter brings a larger gain. Particularly, we find that our implicit PRM, when instantiated with the cross-entropy (CE) loss, is more data-efficient and can keep improving generation models even when trained with only one response per instruction, the setup that suffers from extreme data scarcity and imbalance. Further, instructions should be relevant to downstream tasks while the diversity of responses does not bring gains. Surprisingly, training on extra Math-Shepherd step labels brings no further improvements to our implicit PRM trained on only outcome data. We hope that our work will encourage a rethinking of PRM training approaches and contribute to making training PRMs more accessible.

We present the surprising finding that a language model's reasoning capabilities can be improved by training on synthetic datasets of chain-of-thought (CoT) traces from more capable models, even when all of those traces lead to an incorrect final answer. Our experiments show this approach can yield better performance on reasoning tasks than training on human-annotated datasets. We hypothesize that two key factors explain this phenomenon: first, the distribution of synthetic data is inherently closer to the language model's own distribution, making it more amenable to learning. Second, these `incorrect' traces are often only partially flawed and contain valid reasoning steps from which the model can learn. To further test the first hypothesis, we use a language model to paraphrase human-annotated traces -- shifting their distribution closer to the model's own distribution -- and show that this improves performance. For the second hypothesis, we introduce increasingly flawed CoT traces and study to what extent models are tolerant to these flaws. We demonstrate our findings across various reasoning domains like math, algorithmic reasoning and code generation using MATH, GSM8K, Countdown and MBPP datasets on various language models ranging from 1.5B to 9B across Qwen, Llama, and Gemma models. Our study shows that curating datasets that are closer to the model's distribution is a critical aspect to consider. We also show that a correct final answer is not always a reliable indicator of a faithful reasoning process.

Medical reasoning models (MRMs) achieve superior performance on medical benchmarks compared to medical LLMs; however, high accuracy alone is insufficient for practical deployment. One of such requirements for real-world application is robustness to varying output constraints. Specifically, posing the same medical question while requesting different answer formats should not affect the underlying correctness of the response. We investigate this phenomenon in this paper, focusing on MRMs. To quantify this behavior, we propose the metric answer-format robustness: the ability to reliably generate correct outputs across varying specified formats. We examine three representative formats: multiple-choice, open-ended question-answering, and ranked lists. Across 15 proprietary and open-weight models, we observe substantial variation in format robustness (35-100%). Furthermore, we conduct controlled fine-tuning experiments on a shared backbone with matched training data to isolate the effects of the fine-tuning paradigm. We find that supervised fine-tuning yields more stable behavior across formats, whereas reinforcement fine-tuning often exhibits higher cross-format brittleness, with the degree of instability strongly dependent on reward design. Overall, answer-format robustness in MRMs is trainable yet brittle and requires careful evaluation for practical medical use.

Reference-free faithfulness metrics verify each atomic claim a model makes against ground truth, and are increasingly used to evaluate grounded generation. We show they share a blind spot: they measure only precision -- are the stated claims supported? -- and therefore reward abstention, since a model can score near-perfect faithfulness by saying almost nothing. We make this measurable using Formula 1 telemetry, a domain where strategic ground truth is derived deterministically and, crucially, completely: for each decision we know the full set of facts that mattered. This completeness -- absent in open-domain faithfulness benchmarks -- lets us measure recall (coverage of the relevant facts) exactly, alongside precision. On a multilingual (EN/ES/PT) benchmark of 7,253 decision instances spanning 150 races, the most precise frontier model covers under half of the relevant facts and ranks last by F1, so requiring coverage reorders the systems; the same effect reappears in a second complete-oracle domain (NOAA weather forecasts). A prompt ablation shows the low coverage is not an under-prompting artifact: explicitly asking models to be thorough does not close the gap. We pair faithfulness with coverage into a single score, validate the metric (controlled perturbation; agreement across a model-free regex extractor and a cross-family LLM extractor, system-level Spearman 1.0), and give a verifier-guided generation method that improves precision and recall without references. We release the benchmark, structured annotations, metric, baselines, and an interactive demo.

Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) and Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) are the main RL paradigms used in LLM post-training, each offering distinct advantages. However, RLHF struggles with interpretability and reward hacking because it relies on human judgments that usually lack explicit criteria, whereas RLVR is limited in scope by its focus on correctness-based verifiers. We propose Reinforcement Learning with Binary Flexible Feedback (RLBFF), which combines the versatility of human-driven preferences with the precision of rule-based verification, enabling reward models to capture nuanced aspects of response quality beyond mere correctness. RLBFF extracts principles that can be answered in a binary fashion (e.g. accuracy of information: yes, or code readability: no) from natural language feedback. Such principles can then be used to ground Reward Model training as an entailment task (response satisfies or does not satisfy an arbitrary principle). We show that Reward Models trained in this manner can outperform Bradley-Terry models when matched for data and achieve top performance on RM-Bench (86.2%) and JudgeBench (81.4%, #1 on leaderboard as of September 24, 2025). Additionally, users can specify principles of interest at inference time to customize the focus of our reward models, in contrast to Bradley-Terry models. Finally, we present a fully open source recipe (including data) to align Qwen3-32B using RLBFF and our Reward Model, to match or exceed the performance of o3-mini and DeepSeek R1 on general alignment benchmarks of MT-Bench, WildBench, and Arena Hard v2 (at <5% of the inference cost).

The prevalence and importance of algorithmic two-sided marketplaces has drawn attention to the issue of fairness in such settings. Algorithmic decisions are used in assigning students to schools, users to advertisers, and applicants to job interviews. These decisions should heed the preferences of individuals, and simultaneously be fair with respect to their merits (synonymous with fit, future performance, or need). Merits conditioned on observable features are always uncertain, a fact that is exacerbated by the widespread use of machine learning algorithms to infer merit from the observables. As our key contribution, we carefully axiomatize a notion of individual fairness in the two-sided marketplace setting which respects the uncertainty in the merits; indeed, it simultaneously recognizes uncertainty as the primary potential cause of unfairness and an approach to address it. We design a linear programming framework to find fair utility-maximizing distributions over allocations, and we show that the linear program is robust to perturbations in the estimated parameters of the uncertain merit distributions, a key property in combining the approach with machine learning techniques.

Do large language models (LLMs) anticipate when they will answer correctly? To study this, we extract activations after a question is read but before any tokens are generated, and train linear probes to predict whether the model's forthcoming answer will be correct. Across three open-source model families ranging from 7 to 70 billion parameters, projections on this "in-advance correctness direction" trained on generic trivia questions predict success in distribution and on diverse out-of-distribution knowledge datasets, outperforming black-box baselines and verbalised predicted confidence. Predictive power saturates in intermediate layers, suggesting that self-assessment emerges mid-computation. Notably, generalisation falters on questions requiring mathematical reasoning. Moreover, for models responding "I don't know", doing so strongly correlates with the probe score, indicating that the same direction also captures confidence. By complementing previous results on truthfulness and other behaviours obtained with probes and sparse auto-encoders, our work contributes essential findings to elucidate LLM internals.

Global healthcare providers are exploring use of large language models (LLMs) to provide medical advice to the public. LLMs now achieve nearly perfect scores on medical licensing exams, but this does not necessarily translate to accurate performance in real-world settings. We tested if LLMs can assist members of the public in identifying underlying conditions and choosing a course of action (disposition) in ten medical scenarios in a controlled study with 1,298 participants. Participants were randomly assigned to receive assistance from an LLM (GPT-4o, Llama 3, Command R+) or a source of their choice (control). Tested alone, LLMs complete the scenarios accurately, correctly identifying conditions in 94.9% of cases and disposition in 56.3% on average. However, participants using the same LLMs identified relevant conditions in less than 34.5% of cases and disposition in less than 44.2%, both no better than the control group. We identify user interactions as a challenge to the deployment of LLMs for medical advice. Standard benchmarks for medical knowledge and simulated patient interactions do not predict the failures we find with human participants. Moving forward, we recommend systematic human user testing to evaluate interactive capabilities prior to public deployments in healthcare.

We consider the problem of performing Bayesian inference in probabilistic models where observations are accompanied by uncertainty, referred to as "uncertain evidence." We explore how to interpret uncertain evidence, and by extension the importance of proper interpretation as it pertains to inference about latent variables. We consider a recently-proposed method "distributional evidence" as well as revisit two older methods: Jeffrey's rule and virtual evidence. We devise guidelines on how to account for uncertain evidence and we provide new insights, particularly regarding consistency. To showcase the impact of different interpretations of the same uncertain evidence, we carry out experiments in which one interpretation is defined as "correct." We then compare inference results from each different interpretation illustrating the importance of careful consideration of uncertain evidence.

Retriever-augmented instruction-following models are attractive alternatives to fine-tuned approaches for information-seeking tasks such as question answering (QA). By simply prepending retrieved documents in its input along with an instruction, these models can be adapted to various information domains and tasks without additional fine-tuning. While the model responses tend to be natural and fluent, the additional verbosity makes traditional QA evaluation metrics such as exact match (EM) and F1 unreliable for accurately quantifying model performance. In this work, we investigate the performance of instruction-following models across three information-seeking QA tasks. We use both automatic and human evaluation to evaluate these models along two dimensions: 1) how well they satisfy the user's information need (correctness), and 2) whether they produce a response based on the provided knowledge (faithfulness). Guided by human evaluation and analysis, we highlight the shortcomings of traditional metrics for both correctness and faithfulness. We then propose simple token-overlap based and model-based metrics that reflect the true performance of these models. Our analysis reveals that instruction-following models are competitive, and sometimes even outperform fine-tuned models for correctness. However, these models struggle to stick to the provided knowledge and often hallucinate in their responses. We hope our work encourages a more holistic evaluation of instruction-following models for QA. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/McGill-NLP/instruct-qa

Benchmarks measure whether a model is correct. They do not measure whether a model is reliable. This distinction is largely academic for single-shot inference, but becomes critical for agentic AI systems, where a single rephrased prompt can trigger cascading failures in multi-step execution. Yet this form of instability is not captured by existing evaluations. Hallucinations live in variance: they arise when semantically equivalent prompts activate inconsistent internal pathways, producing divergent outputs. Consistent but incorrect outputs reflect bias or missing knowledge; confident guessing reflects calibration failure. Neither constitutes hallucination under this definition. When error is variance-dominated, reducing redundant pathways improves reliability without adding knowledge. We formalize this through Semantic Stability (SS), measured via Paraphrase Consistency (PC@k): generate k paraphrases, greedy decode each, compute mode agreement. SS is a diagnostic for variance-driven unreliability, not a method for improving correctness. We show that a dense Qwen3-0.6B agrees with itself only 23.8% of the time; at 32% sparsity, agreement jumps to 55.9%. A phase diagram reveals the sweet spot where variance reduction outpaces bias accumulation, and regimes where stability collapses onto wrong answers.

In this paper, we propose R^3: Learning Reasoning through Reverse Curriculum Reinforcement Learning (RL), a novel method that employs only outcome supervision to achieve the benefits of process supervision for large language models. The core challenge in applying RL to complex reasoning is to identify a sequence of actions that result in positive rewards and provide appropriate supervision for optimization. Outcome supervision provides sparse rewards for final results without identifying error locations, whereas process supervision offers step-wise rewards but requires extensive manual annotation. R^3 overcomes these limitations by learning from correct demonstrations. Specifically, R^3 progressively slides the start state of reasoning from a demonstration's end to its beginning, facilitating easier model exploration at all stages. Thus, R^3 establishes a step-wise curriculum, allowing outcome supervision to offer step-level signals and precisely pinpoint errors. Using Llama2-7B, our method surpasses RL baseline on eight reasoning tasks by 4.1 points on average. Notebaly, in program-based reasoning on GSM8K, it exceeds the baseline by 4.2 points across three backbone models, and without any extra data, Codellama-7B + R^3 performs comparable to larger models or closed-source models.

Several studies showed that Large Language Models (LLMs) can answer medical questions correctly, even outperforming the average human score in some medical exams. However, to our knowledge, no study has been conducted to assess the ability of language models to validate existing or generated medical text for correctness and consistency. In this paper, we introduce MEDEC (https://github.com/abachaa/MEDEC), the first publicly available benchmark for medical error detection and correction in clinical notes, covering five types of errors (Diagnosis, Management, Treatment, Pharmacotherapy, and Causal Organism). MEDEC consists of 3,848 clinical texts, including 488 clinical notes from three US hospital systems that were not previously seen by any LLM. The dataset has been used for the MEDIQA-CORR shared task to evaluate seventeen participating systems [Ben Abacha et al., 2024]. In this paper, we describe the data creation methods and we evaluate recent LLMs (e.g., o1-preview, GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) for the tasks of detecting and correcting medical errors requiring both medical knowledge and reasoning capabilities. We also conducted a comparative study where two medical doctors performed the same task on the MEDEC test set. The results showed that MEDEC is a sufficiently challenging benchmark to assess the ability of models to validate existing or generated notes and to correct medical errors. We also found that although recent LLMs have a good performance in error detection and correction, they are still outperformed by medical doctors in these tasks. We discuss the potential factors behind this gap, the insights from our experiments, the limitations of current evaluation metrics, and share potential pointers for future research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive problem-solving capabilities in mathematics through step-by-step reasoning chains. However, they are susceptible to reasoning errors that impact the quality of subsequent reasoning chains and the final answer due to language models' autoregressive token-by-token generating nature. Recent works have proposed adopting external verifiers to guide the generation of reasoning paths, but existing works utilize models that have been trained with step-by-step labels to assess the correctness of token-by-token reasoning chains. Consequently, they struggle to recognize discriminative details of tokens within a reasoning path and lack the ability to evaluate whether an intermediate reasoning path is on a promising track toward the correct final answer. To amend the lack of sound and token-grained math-verification signals, we devise a novel training scheme for verifiers that apply token-level supervision with the expected cumulative reward (i.e., value). Furthermore, we propose a practical formulation of the cumulative reward by reducing it to finding the probability of future correctness of the final answer and thereby enabling the empirical estimation of the value. Experimental results on mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that Token-Supervised Value Model (TVM) can outperform step-by-step verifiers on GSM8K and MATH with Mistral and Llama.

Conformal prediction (CP) offers distribution-free uncertainty quantification for machine learning models, yet its interplay with fairness in downstream decision-making remains underexplored. Moving beyond CP as a standalone operation (procedural fairness), we analyze the holistic decision-making pipeline to evaluate substantive fairness-the equity of downstream outcomes. Theoretically, we derive an upper bound that decomposes prediction-set size disparity into interpretable components, clarifying how label-clustered CP helps control method-driven contributions to unfairness. To facilitate scalable empirical analysis, we introduce an LLM-in-the-loop evaluator that approximates human assessment of substantive fairness across diverse modalities. Our experiments reveal that label-clustered CP variants consistently deliver superior substantive fairness. Finally, we empirically show that equalized set sizes, rather than coverage, strongly correlate with improved substantive fairness, enabling practitioners to design more fair CP systems. Our code is available at https://github.com/layer6ai-labs/llm-in-the-loop-conformal-fairness.

We introduce CRYSTAL (Clear Reasoning via Yielded Steps, Traceability, and Logic), a diagnostic benchmark with 6,372 instances that evaluates multimodal reasoning through verifiable intermediate steps. We propose two complementary metrics: Match F1, which scores step-level precision and recall via semantic similarity matching, and Ordered Match F1, which further penalizes disordered reasoning chains. References are constructed through a Delphi-inspired pipeline in which four independent MLLMs generate trajectories, which are then aggregated via semantic clustering and validated through human quality gates. Evaluation of 20 MLLMs, including commercial frontier systems not used during benchmark construction, reveals systematic failures that are invisible to answer accuracy: universal cherry-picking (precision far exceeds recall), non-monotonic scaling trade-offs, and disordered reasoning in which no competitive model preserves more than 60% of matched steps in the correct order. Beyond evaluation, we propose the Causal Process Reward (CPR), a multiplicative reward that couples answer correctness with step-level alignment, and CPR-Curriculum, which progressively increases reasoning difficulty during training. CPR-Curriculum achieves a 32% improvement in Match F1 via GRPO where additive reward strategies fail, improving reasoning without manual step annotation.

Self-correction of large language models (LLMs) emerges as a critical component for enhancing their reasoning performance. Although various self-correction methods have been proposed, a comprehensive evaluation of these methods remains largely unexplored, and the question of whether LLMs can truly correct themselves is a matter of significant interest and concern. In this study, we introduce CorrectBench, a benchmark developed to evaluate the effectiveness of self-correction strategies, including intrinsic, external, and fine-tuned approaches, across three tasks: commonsense reasoning, mathematical reasoning, and code generation. Our findings reveal that: 1) Self-correction methods can improve accuracy, especially for complex reasoning tasks; 2) Mixing different self-correction strategies yields further improvements, though it reduces efficiency; 3) Reasoning LLMs (e.g., DeepSeek-R1) have limited optimization under additional self-correction methods and have high time costs. Interestingly, a comparatively simple chain-of-thought (CoT) baseline demonstrates competitive accuracy and efficiency. These results underscore the potential of self-correction to enhance LLM's reasoning performance while highlighting the ongoing challenge of improving their efficiency. Consequently, we advocate for further research focused on optimizing the balance between reasoning capabilities and operational efficiency. Project Page: https://correctbench.github.io/

Can AI agents predict whether they will succeed at a task? We study agentic uncertainty by eliciting success probability estimates before, during, and after task execution. All results exhibit agentic overconfidence: some agents that succeed only 22% of the time predict 77% success. Counterintuitively, pre-execution assessment with strictly less information tends to yield better discrimination than standard post-execution review, though differences are not always significant. Adversarial prompting reframing assessment as bug-finding achieves the best calibration.

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions. However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons. To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy. Our construction follows a two-stage validation-and-repair workflow resulting in a certified benchmark. In Stage I, each item undergoes binary validation of the problem and final answer through domain-expert review and model-based cross-checks, yielding 641 verified items. In Stage II, flawed but fixable items are revised under strict constraints preserving the original evaluation intent, through dual independent expert repairs, model-assisted auditing, and final adjudication, resulting in 1,170 revised-and-certified items. The remaining 689 items are released as a documented uncertain set with explicit uncertainty sources and expertise tags for future refinement. We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified. The improvement is particularly pronounced on items where the original problem statement and/or reference answer is erroneous, with gains of 30--40 percentage points. Our analyses further reveal a strong association between model confidence and the presence of errors in the problem statement or reference answer, supporting the effectiveness of our revisions. Overall, HLE-Verified improves HLE-style evaluations by reducing annotation noise and enabling more faithful measurement of model capabilities. Data is available at: https://github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HLE-Verified

Common evaluation paradigms for language models focus on scoring single responses through accuracy metrics or proper scoring rules, failing to capture the full richness of a model's belief state. Recent work illustrates that language models hallucinate in-part because they are optimised to be good test-takers under binary scoring schemes that reward any answer over abstention. While this insight naturally leads to penalty-based approaches, they ignore crucial distinctions in how models distribute uncertainty, for example between hedging toward incorrect answers versus hedging toward "I don't know" responses. A novel evaluation metric, the Distributional Correctness Score (DCS), is introduced to solve this problem, i.e., of not considering a model's entire probability distribution over answer choices. DCS naturally distinguishes between harmful overconfidence in wrong answers and uncertainty expressed through abstention, providing scores in an interpretable default range. Through theoretical analysis and illustrative examples, DCS is demonstrated to offer a more nuanced and aligned evaluation paradigm that incentivises models to express genuine uncertainty rather than guessing. Adapting 12 existing evaluation benchmarks to DCS's variants and measuring performance on six language models reveals that for half of the tested benchmarks scores are negative across all tested models, indicating significant tendencies towards hallucination.

When deploying machine learning models in high-stakes real-world environments such as health care, it is crucial to accurately assess the uncertainty concerning a model's prediction on abnormal inputs. However, there is a scarcity of literature analyzing this problem on medical data, especially on mixed-type tabular data such as Electronic Health Records. We close this gap by presenting a series of tests including a large variety of contemporary uncertainty estimation techniques, in order to determine whether they are able to identify out-of-distribution (OOD) patients. In contrast to previous work, we design tests on realistic and clinically relevant OOD groups, and run experiments on real-world medical data. We find that almost all techniques fail to achieve convincing results, partly disagreeing with earlier findings.

Large language models (LLMs) often present answers with high apparent confidence despite lacking an explicit mechanism for reasoning about certainty or truth. While existing benchmarks primarily evaluate single-turn accuracy, truthfulness or confidence calibration, they do not capture how models behave when their responses are challenged in interactive settings. We introduce the Certainty Robustness Benchmark, a two-turn evaluation framework that measures how LLMs balance stability and adaptability under self-challenging prompts such as uncertainty ("Are you sure?") and explicit contradiction ("You are wrong!"), alongside numeric confidence elicitation. Using 200 reasoning and mathematics questions from LiveBench, we evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs and distinguish between justified self-corrections and unjustified answer changes. Our results reveal substantial differences in interactive reliability that are not explained by baseline accuracy alone: some models abandon correct answers under conversational pressure, while others demonstrate strong resistance to challenge and better alignment between confidence and correctness. These findings identify certainty robustness as a distinct and critical dimension of LLM evaluation, with important implications for alignment, trustworthiness and real-world deployment.

Survival analysis is the problem of estimating probability distributions for future event times, which can be seen as a problem in uncertainty quantification. Although there are fundamental theories on strictly proper scoring rules for uncertainty quantification, little is known about those for survival analysis. In this paper, we investigate extensions of four major strictly proper scoring rules for survival analysis and we prove that these extensions are proper under certain conditions, which arise from the discretization of the estimation of probability distributions. We also compare the estimation performances of these extended scoring rules by using real datasets, and the extensions of the logarithmic score and the Brier score performed the best.

Large language models can detect their own errors and sometimes correct them without external feedback, but the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. We investigate this through the lens of second-order models of confidence from decision neuroscience. In a first-order system, confidence derives from the generation signal itself and is therefore maximal for the chosen response, precluding error detection. Second-order models posit a partially independent evaluative signal that can disagree with the committed response, providing the basis for error detection. Kumaran et al. (2026) showed that LLMs cache a confidence representation at a token immediately following the answer (i.e. post-answer newline: PANL) -- that causally drives verbal confidence and dissociates from log-probabilities. Here we test whether this PANL signal extends beyond confidence to support error detection and self-correction. Here we test whether this signal supports error detection and self-correction, deriving predictions from the second-order framework. Using a verify-then-correct paradigm, we show that: (i) verbal confidence predicts error detection far beyond token log-probabilities, ruling out a first-order account; (ii) PANL activations predict error detection beyond verbal confidence itself; and (iii) PANL predicts which errors the model can correct -- where all behavioural signals fail. Causal interventions confirm that PANL signals rescue error detection behavior when answer information is corrupted. All findings replicate across models (Gemma 3 27B and Qwen 2.5 7B) and tasks (TriviaQA and MNLI). These results reveal that LLMs naturally implement a second-order confidence architecture whose internal evaluative signal encodes not only whether an answer is likely wrong but whether the model has the knowledge to fix it.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant progress in performing complex tasks. While Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has been effective in aligning LLMs with human preferences, it is susceptible to spurious correlations in reward modeling. Consequently, it often introduces biases-such as length bias, sycophancy, conceptual bias, and discrimination that hinder the model's ability to capture true causal relationships. To address this, we propose a novel causal reward modeling approach that integrates causal inference to mitigate these spurious correlations. Our method enforces counterfactual invariance, ensuring reward predictions remain consistent when irrelevant variables are altered. Through experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets, we show that our approach mitigates various types of spurious correlations effectively, resulting in more reliable and fair alignment of LLMs with human preferences. As a drop-in enhancement to the existing RLHF workflow, our causal reward modeling provides a practical way to improve the trustworthiness and fairness of LLM finetuning.

Sports betting's recent federal legalisation in the USA coincides with the golden age of machine learning. If bettors can leverage data to reliably predict the probability of an outcome, they can recognise when the bookmaker's odds are in their favour. As sports betting is a multi-billion dollar industry in the USA alone, identifying such opportunities could be extremely lucrative. Many researchers have applied machine learning to the sports outcome prediction problem, generally using accuracy to evaluate the performance of predictive models. We hypothesise that for the sports betting problem, model calibration is more important than accuracy. To test this hypothesis, we train models on NBA data over several seasons and run betting experiments on a single season, using published odds. We show that using calibration, rather than accuracy, as the basis for model selection leads to greater returns, on average (return on investment of +34.69% versus -35.17%) and in the best case (+36.93% versus +5.56%). These findings suggest that for sports betting (or any probabilistic decision-making problem), calibration is a more important metric than accuracy. Sports bettors who wish to increase profits should therefore select their predictive model based on calibration, rather than accuracy.

Generative Reward Models (GenRMs) and LLM-as-a-Judge exhibit deceptive alignment by producing correct judgments for incorrect reasons, as they are trained and evaluated to prioritize Outcome Accuracy, which undermines their ability to generalize during RLHF. We introduce Rationale Consistency, a fine-grained metric that quantifies the alignment between the model's reasoning process and human judgment. Our evaluation of frontier models reveals that rationale consistency effectively discriminates among state-of-the-art models and detects deceptive alignment, while outcome accuracy falls short in both respects. To mitigate this gap, we introduce a hybrid signal that combines rationale consistency with outcome accuracy for GenRM training. Our training method achieves state-of-the-art performance on RM-Bench (87.1%) and JudgeBench (82%), surpassing outcome-only baselines by an average of 5%. Using RM during RLHF, our method effectively improves performance as demonstrated on Arena Hard v2, notably yielding a 7% improvement in creative writing tasks. Further analysis confirms that our method escapes the deceptive alignment trap, effectively reversing the decline in rationale consistency observed in outcome-only training.

Search agents powered by large language models can autonomously decompose queries, retrieve information, and synthesize answers through multi-step reasoning. However, the rapid growth of training methods has outpaced controlled comparison: existing works differ in retrieval corpora, reward designs, and training protocols, making it unclear what actually drives improvements. We present a controlled empirical study that isolates three under-explored dimensions of search agent training. First, we identify a critical data-coverage issue in the widely used Wikipedia 2018 corpus and show that correcting it alone yields larger gains than the differences between training algorithms. Second, we systematically compare outcome-based and process-based reward methods across three base models, finding that the simplest outcome-based approach achieves competitive or superior performance in most settings, and that process-level credit assignment can over-correct agent behavior. Third, we analyze training data diversity, off-policy data utilization, and search budget scaling, distilling practical guidelines for training effective search agents. Our code is available at https://github.com/YiboZhao624/SearchAgentReview.

As LLM-based agents are deployed in production systems, understanding their behavioral consistency (whether they produce similar action sequences when given identical tasks) becomes critical for reliability. We study consistency in the context of SWE-bench, a challenging software engineering benchmark requiring complex, multi-step reasoning. Comparing Claude~4.5~Sonnet, GPT-5, and Llama-3.1-70B across 50 runs each (10 tasks times 5 runs), we find that across models, higher consistency aligns with higher accuracy: Claude achieves the lowest variance (CV: 15.2\%) and highest accuracy (58\%), GPT-5 is intermediate (CV: 32.2\%, accuracy: 32\%), and Llama shows the highest variance (CV: 47.0\%) with lowest accuracy (4\%). However, within a model, consistency can amplify both correct and incorrect interpretations. Our analysis reveals a critical nuance: consistency amplifies outcomes rather than guaranteeing correctness. 71\% of Claude's failures stem from "consistent wrong interpretation": making the same incorrect assumption across all runs. Interestingly, GPT-5 achieves similar early strategic agreement as Claude (diverging at step 3.4 vs.\ 3.2) but exhibits 2.1times higher variance, suggesting that divergence timing alone does not determine consistency. These findings suggest that for production deployment, interpretation accuracy matters more than execution consistency, with implications for agent evaluation and training.

Large Language Models (LLMs) leverage step-by-step reasoning to solve complex problems. Standard evaluation practice involves generating a complete reasoning trace and assessing the correctness of the final answer presented at its conclusion. In this paper, we challenge the reliance on the final answer by posing the following two questions: Does the final answer reliably represent the model's optimal conclusion? Can alternative reasoning paths yield different results? To answer these questions, we analyze intermediate reasoning steps, termed subthoughts, and propose a method based on our findings. Our approach involves segmenting a reasoning trace into sequential subthoughts based on linguistic cues. We start by prompting the model to generate continuations from the end-point of each intermediate subthought. We extract a potential answer from every completed continuation originating from different subthoughts. We find that aggregating these answers by selecting the most frequent one (the mode) often yields significantly higher accuracy compared to relying solely on the answer derived from the original complete trace. Analyzing the consistency among the answers derived from different subthoughts reveals characteristics that correlate with the model's confidence and correctness, suggesting potential for identifying less reliable answers. Our experiments across various LLMs and challenging mathematical reasoning datasets (AIME2024 and AIME2025) show consistent accuracy improvements, with gains reaching up to 13\% and 10\% respectively. Implementation is available at: https://github.com/hammoudhasan/SubthoughtReasoner.

Binary classification involves predicting the label of an instance based on whether the model score for the positive class exceeds a threshold chosen based on the application requirements (e.g., maximizing recall for a precision bound). However, model scores are often not aligned with the true positivity rate. This is especially true when the training involves a differential sampling across classes or there is distributional drift between train and test settings. In this paper, we provide theoretical analysis and empirical evidence of the dependence of model score estimation bias on both uncertainty and score itself. Further, we formulate the decision boundary selection in terms of both model score and uncertainty, prove that it is NP-hard, and present algorithms based on dynamic programming and isotonic regression. Evaluation of the proposed algorithms on three real-world datasets yield 25%-40% gain in recall at high precision bounds over the traditional approach of using model score alone, highlighting the benefits of leveraging uncertainty.

Training expert LLMs in domains with scarce data is difficult, often relying on multiple-choice questions (MCQs). However, standard outcome-based reinforcement learning (RL) on MCQs is risky. While it may improve accuracy, we observe it often degrades reasoning quality such as logical consistency. Existing solutions to supervise reasoning, such as large-scale Process Reward Models (PRMs), are prohibitively expensive. To address this, we propose CLARity, a cost-effective RL framework that enhances reasoning quality using only a small, general-purpose LLM. CLARity integrates a consistency-aware reward mechanism with a 2-stage refine-then-monitor training pipeline to enhance reasoning consistency, and a dynamic data reformulation strategy to to better exploit limited data. Experiments demonstrate that CLARity improves response consistency by 16.5% and accuracy by 7.5% over baselines. Human evaluations further confirm holistic improvements in coherence and professionalism. Thus, CLARity offers a generalizable solution that enables smaller models to effectively guide expert models by reasoning consistency.Our code is open sourced at: https://github.com/Infinite-set/CLARity

While reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has advanced LLM reasoning in structured domains like mathematics and programming, its application to general-domain reasoning tasks remains challenging due to the absence of verifiable reward signals. To this end, methods like Reinforcement Learning with Reference Probability Reward (RLPR) have emerged, leveraging the probability of generating the final answer as a reward signal. However, these outcome-focused approaches neglect crucial step-by-step supervision of the reasoning process itself. To address this gap, we introduce Probabilistic Process Supervision (P2S), a novel self-supervision framework that provides fine-grained process rewards without requiring a separate reward model or human-annotated reasoning steps. During reinforcement learning, P2S synthesizes and filters a high-quality reference reasoning chain (gold-CoT). The core of our method is to calculate a Path Faithfulness Reward (PFR) for each reasoning step, which is derived from the conditional probability of generating the gold-CoT's suffix, given the model's current reasoning prefix. Crucially, this PFR can be flexibly integrated with any outcome-based reward, directly tackling the reward sparsity problem by providing dense guidance. Extensive experiments on reading comprehension and medical Question Answering benchmarks show that P2S significantly outperforms strong baselines.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce errors, including factual inaccuracies, biases, and reasoning failures, collectively referred to as "hallucinations". Recent studies have demonstrated that LLMs' internal states encode information regarding the truthfulness of their outputs, and that this information can be utilized to detect errors. In this work, we show that the internal representations of LLMs encode much more information about truthfulness than previously recognized. We first discover that the truthfulness information is concentrated in specific tokens, and leveraging this property significantly enhances error detection performance. Yet, we show that such error detectors fail to generalize across datasets, implying that -- contrary to prior claims -- truthfulness encoding is not universal but rather multifaceted. Next, we show that internal representations can also be used for predicting the types of errors the model is likely to make, facilitating the development of tailored mitigation strategies. Lastly, we reveal a discrepancy between LLMs' internal encoding and external behavior: they may encode the correct answer, yet consistently generate an incorrect one. Taken together, these insights deepen our understanding of LLM errors from the model's internal perspective, which can guide future research on enhancing error analysis and mitigation.

Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for enhancing the complex reasoning capabilities of Large Reasoning Models. However, standard outcome-based supervision suffers from a critical limitation that penalizes trajectories that are largely correct but fail due to several missteps as heavily as completely erroneous ones. This coarse feedback signal causes the model to discard valuable largely correct rollouts, leading to a degradation in rollout diversity that prematurely narrows the exploration space. Process Reward Models have demonstrated efficacy in providing reliable step-wise verification for test-time scaling, naively integrating these signals into RLVR as dense rewards proves ineffective.Prior methods attempt to introduce off-policy guided whole-trajectory replacement that often outside the policy model's distribution, but still fail to utilize the largely correct rollouts generated by the model itself and thus do not effectively mitigate the narrowing of the exploration space. To address these issues, we propose SCOPE (Step-wise Correction for On-Policy Exploration), a novel framework that utilizes Process Reward Models to pinpoint the first erroneous step in suboptimal rollouts and applies fine-grained, step-wise off-policy rectification. By applying precise refinement on partially correct rollout, our method effectively salvages partially correct trajectories and increases diversity score by 13.5%, thereby sustaining a broad exploration space. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach establishes new state-of-the-art results, achieving an average accuracy of 46.6% on math reasoning and exhibiting robust generalization with 53.4% accuracy on out-of-distribution reasoning tasks.

Reliable probability estimation is of crucial importance in many real-world applications where there is inherent (aleatoric) uncertainty. Probability-estimation models are trained on observed outcomes (e.g. whether it has rained or not, or whether a patient has died or not), because the ground-truth probabilities of the events of interest are typically unknown. The problem is therefore analogous to binary classification, with the difference that the objective is to estimate probabilities rather than predicting the specific outcome. This work investigates probability estimation from high-dimensional data using deep neural networks. There exist several methods to improve the probabilities generated by these models but they mostly focus on model (epistemic) uncertainty. For problems with inherent uncertainty, it is challenging to evaluate performance without access to ground-truth probabilities. To address this, we build a synthetic dataset to study and compare different computable metrics. We evaluate existing methods on the synthetic data as well as on three real-world probability estimation tasks, all of which involve inherent uncertainty: precipitation forecasting from radar images, predicting cancer patient survival from histopathology images, and predicting car crashes from dashcam videos. We also give a theoretical analysis of a model for high-dimensional probability estimation which reproduces several of the phenomena evinced in our experiments. Finally, we propose a new method for probability estimation using neural networks, which modifies the training process to promote output probabilities that are consistent with empirical probabilities computed from the data. The method outperforms existing approaches on most metrics on the simulated as well as real-world data.

Seven years ago, researchers proposed a postprocessing method to equalize the error rates of a model across different demographic groups. The work launched hundreds of papers purporting to improve over the postprocessing baseline. We empirically evaluate these claims through thousands of model evaluations on several tabular datasets. We find that the fairness-accuracy Pareto frontier achieved by postprocessing contains all other methods we were feasibly able to evaluate. In doing so, we address two common methodological errors that have confounded previous observations. One relates to the comparison of methods with different unconstrained base models. The other concerns methods achieving different levels of constraint relaxation. At the heart of our study is a simple idea we call unprocessing that roughly corresponds to the inverse of postprocessing. Unprocessing allows for a direct comparison of methods using different underlying models and levels of relaxation.