Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Lightweight Latent Verifiers for Efficient Meta-Generation Strategies

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LiLaVe, a lightweight verifier, predicts answer correctness from the base LLM's hidden states and matches much larger verifiers at a fraction of the cost.

desk verdict A lightweight XGBoost probe on a base LLM's hidden states does surprisingly well as a math verifier, but the headline strategy gains lean on thresholds picked on test labels; worth refereeing with a required validation-set experiment. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16760 v1 pith:SG46GRMT submitted 2025-04-23 cs.AI

Bartosz Piotrowski , Witold Drzewakowski , Konrad Staniszewski , Piotr Mi{l}oś This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords lightweightlatentverifierhiddenstatesXGBoostmeta-generationconditionalself-correctionmajorityvotingmathematicalreasoningLLMverification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a full-size verifier model is unnecessary: the correctness of a generated math answer can be read directly from the activations of the model that generated it. Its method, LiLaVe, trains a small gradient-boosted classifier on hidden states extracted during chain-of-thought decoding, labelled only by whether the final answer is right, and averages the classifier's per-token scores into a correctness estimate. On GSM8K, GSM-Symbolic, algebra linear 1d, and MATH500, this estimate outranks self-reported confidence and token-log-probability heuristics and matches LLM-based verifiers trained on about fifty times more data. The paper then uses the score as a gate: self-correction and majority voting are invoked only for low-scoring answers, improving both accuracy and sample efficiency for smaller models. If the claims hold, the expensive verifier component of many reasoning pipelines can be replaced by a CPU-only classifier.

What carries the argument

The machinery is LiLaVe's score itself: hidden states from each location in $L \times T$ are fed, together with the layer and token indices, into gradient-boosted decision trees (the XGBoost implementation), and the per-location predictions are averaged into the final score. Averaging over the last 16 tokens and layers $\{-1,-2,-4,-8,-16\}$ is the configuration selected by the location study. This object carries the argument because it turns raw activations into a single correctness probability without running a second LLM; the rest of the paper consists in showing that this probability ranks answers well and can trigger compute-saving meta-generation strategies.

What would settle it

Use a validation split (no test labels) to pick the threshold $s$ and the token/layer locations $L,T$, then measure test accuracy on the same benchmarks; if conditional self-correction and conditional majority voting no longer beat standard majority voting at equal generation budgets, the central efficiency claim is falsified. A direct check is to compare validation-selected thresholds with the test-optimal thresholds shown in the figures: if the validation choices fall outside the accuracy-improving range, the reported gains will not survive deployment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that hidden states of the base LLM carry a reliable, usable correctness signal. Per-token XGBoost classifiers trained on layers $\{-1,-2,-4,-8,-16\}$ and the final 16 token positions give answer-level AUCs of 0.78–0.93 across four math datasets, beating self-reflection and logprob baselines and matching Llama-3.1-8B-based verifiers trained on 250k+ examples while using only 5k scored samples. The paper also claims that this signal generalizes beyond ranking: conditional self-correction and conditional majority voting, which apply extra computation only when the score falls below a threshold, yield accuracy gains at equal or lower generation budgets, and weighted majority voting with LiLaVe scores is consistently the strongest scoring-based strategy among those compared.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the same threshold, and the same hidden-state locations, can be chosen without seeing test answers; in the paper's main plots the thresholds and locations are selected after evaluating on the test partition, so the practical gains depend on those choices transferring to a held-out validation set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Scoring already-generated responses with LiLaVe runs on CPU and takes about 3.4 seconds for the GSM8K test set, versus about 20 minutes on a GPU for a benchmarked LLM-based verifier, a roughly 350x speedup in verification-side cost.
  • Gating self-correction on a low LiLaVe score avoids the usual accuracy collapse: unconditional self-correction drops accuracy by 15–30 points, while selective correction improves accuracy on algebra linear 1d and GSM-Symbolic-p2.
  • Gating majority voting on a low LiLaVe score (conditional majority voting) yields better accuracy than standard majority voting across a wide range of generation budgets, measured as total generated samples.
  • Weighted majority voting with LiLaVe scores beats both best-of-n and unweighted majority voting on all four benchmarks at every vote count tested.
  • A verifier trained on 5k scored samples per benchmark reaches AUC comparable to Llama-3.1-8B-based outcome reward models trained on more than 250k samples, and the trained verifier transfers across datasets and to other base models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the threshold and hidden-state locations are tuned on a held-out validation set rather than the test partition, the practical gains of conditional self-correction and conditional majority voting may be smaller than the figures suggest; the paper does not report this validation-tuned protocol.
  • The early-token signal suggests an online decoding controller that stops or redirects low-scoring trajectories before full generation; the paper names verifier-conditioned decoding only as future work, so this application is an extension.
  • The same recipe could be applied to non-mathematical reasoning, such as code correctness or factuality, by training on hidden states with corresponding binary labels; this is a testable extension rather than a claim in the paper.
  • The asymmetric cross-dataset transfer reported in the appendix implies that training-data coverage drives transfer more than classifier choice does; the paper does not draw that conclusion explicitly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LiLaVe, a lightweight verifier trained with XGBoost on hidden states extracted from a base LLM at selected layers and tokens, with the aim of predicting whether a chain-of-thought solution is correct. The verifier is evaluated by AUC on four math benchmarks (GSM8K, GSM-Symbolic, GSM-Symbolic-p2, algebra linear 1d, MATH500) and compared against self-reflection prompting, a log-probability baseline, and two large LLM-based outcome reward models. The authors then use LiLaVe scores in best-of-n, weighted majority voting, conditional self-correction, and conditional majority voting, reporting accuracy gains and compute savings for smaller LLMs. The central claims are that LiLaVe extracts correctness signal comparable to much larger verifiers, and that the proposed conditional meta-generation strategies improve accuracy and efficiency under fixed generation budgets.

Significance. If the claims hold under a properly held-out evaluation protocol, this is a practically valuable result: a CPU-only, small-data classifier on hidden states could replace expensive LLM-based verifiers for math reasoning, and the conditional strategies offer a concrete accuracy-efficiency trade-off. The paper has genuine strengths: the layer/token location study is informative, the temperature analysis is systematic, the evaluation spans multiple benchmarks and base models, and the efficiency measurements give concrete evidence of low overhead. The central weakness is that the main practical claims rely on choices made on the test labels, and the manuscript contains an internal hyperparameter inconsistency. With a validation-based selection protocol, the core idea is likely sound, but the reported gains need to be re-established without test-set peeking.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.2, Figure 1] The hidden-state locations L_LiLaVe and T_LiLaVe are selected after evaluating AUC on the testing partition (Section 4.2, Figure 1). The same test partitions are then used for the AUC comparisons in Table 1 and for the meta-generation experiments in Figures 3–5. This means the reported performance includes a model-selection step performed on the test labels. The final choice of a broad suffix of tokens and five layers may be stable, but the manuscript currently provides no evidence for that stability. Please fix a selection protocol using a validation split (or a priori location sets) and report the corresponding test results.
  2. [4.4, Figures 4 and 5] The accuracy and efficiency gains of conditional self-correction and conditional majority voting are reported at thresholds s that maximize test accuracy: Figure 4 marks the 'optimal thresholds' in orange, and Figure 5 plots an envelope over thresholds. The paper itself notes that 'this hyperparameter must be tuned depending on the data' and that 'one would tune the n and s parameters on a validation set,' but no validation-set experiment is run. Since these two strategies are the main practical payoff of the method, the claims are not established without a held-out threshold selection. Please run a validation split, select s (and n) on it, and report test-set accuracy/efficiency; also report the sensitivity of the gains to the chosen threshold.
  3. [A.2 and A.2.1] There is an internal inconsistency in the XGBoost hyperparameters: Section A.2 states 'We set the maximum tree depth to 5,' while Section A.2.1 lists 'max depth=10' among the XGBoost hyperparameters. Since XGBoost is the core verifier model, this inconsistency must be resolved and the exact configuration used for all reported experiments must be stated.
  4. [4.3, Table 1] The comparison with ORM baselines may disadvantage them in a way that affects the headline claim of being 'comparably good' as LLM-based verifiers trained on much larger data. ORM-Mistral and ORM-Deepseek are based on Llama 3.1 8B but trained on data generated by Mistral-7B and DeepSeekMath-Instruct 7B, while they are evaluated as verifiers of Llama 3.1 8B outputs. The paper itself cites evidence that verifier performance may not transfer across base LLMs. A domain-matched ORM baseline (e.g., fine-tuned on Llama 3.1 8B generations), or at least a discussion of the expected transfer effect, would make the comparison more convincing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 3–5 and Table 1] Several reported differences are small (e.g., weighted versus standard majority voting on GSM-Symbolic), but no confidence intervals or significance tests are provided. Reporting standard errors or bootstrap intervals would help assess whether the differences are meaningful.
  2. [4.3] The logprob baseline's suffix length k is chosen on the test set; the paper calls this an idealized upper bound, but it would be clearer to also report results for a fixed k or for k selected on a validation set.
  3. [4.1] There is a typo in Section 4.1: 'obatained' should be 'obtained'; Appendix A.1 has 'comparizon' instead of 'comparison.'
  4. [A.2] The sentence 'For each line and plot The solid lines are medians...' is ungrammatical and should be reworded.
  5. [Appendix A.7] The cross-model verification experiment is interesting but is reported on a single base-model pair; stating whether the same trend holds for Llama-generated responses scored by a Phi-based LiLaVe would make the transfer claim more complete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LiLaVe is a supervised probe trained on external correctness labels, and its reported meta-generation gains are honest threshold sweeps that the paper explicitly says must be tuned on a validation set.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. LiLaVe is trained on hidden states extracted from the base LLM, labeled by whether the final answer matches an external ground truth (Section 3.1); the XGBoost classifier therefore learns to predict an externally defined binary correctness label, and the central AUC evaluations (Table 1, Figures 1 and 2) are measured against those same external labels, not against any quantity fitted into the method. The meta-generation strategies use the learned LiLaVe score in a forward direction (best-of-n, weighted voting, conditional self-correction, conditional majority voting), and the score is not defined in terms of the downstream accuracy or efficiency that is being reported. The main experimental caveat is that the threshold s in Figures 4 and 5 is selected on the test data, and the paper openly acknowledges this: it states that "The optimal threshold varies per dataset (indicated in orange in Figure 4), so in practice, this hyperparameter must be tuned depending on the data" (Section 4.4) and that "In a real scenario, one would tune the n and s parameters on a validation set" (Section 4.4). This is a test-set-tuning limitation that may inflate the reported gains, but it is not a circular derivation: the paper does not present the threshold as predicted or derived from first principles, and the underlying verifier's correctness signal is independently benchmarked against external labels. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. The method's core claim, that a lightweight classifier on hidden states can approximate verifier quality on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, stands on its own supervised evaluation rather than on an equation that equals its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

LiLaVe itself is a fitted classifier on observable hidden states, so the central free parameters are the data-selected hyperparameters: hidden-state locations, strategy thresholds, and XGBoost settings. No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced. The main unstated burden is the assumption that test-set-based hyperparameter selection yields a transferable recipe, which the paper does not validate on held-out data.

free parameters (5)
  • Hidden-state location sets L, T = L={-1,-2,-4,-8,-16}; T={-1,...,-16}
    Chosen in Section 4.2 based on AUC on the test partitions; this is a model selection on the evaluation data.
  • Threshold s for conditional self-correction = 0.72, 0.81, 0.48, 0.41 per dataset (Fig.4)
    Selected as the value maximizing test accuracy on each dataset in Figure 4; no validation split described.
  • Threshold s for conditional majority voting = 0.50-0.85, chosen per budget (Fig.5)
    Selected per dataset and per budget on the test data; not held out.
  • Logprob baseline suffix length k = per dataset, chosen to maximize AUC
    The baseline is given an oracle choice of k per dataset, making the comparison favorable to the baseline; not part of LiLaVe itself.
  • XGBoost hyperparameters = max_depth=5 or 10 (conflict), eta=0.1, nrounds=30
    Hand-chosen; minor effect on the central claim but affects reproducibility.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The automated evaluator that compares final answers to ground truth (exact match, or semantic comparison for MATH) correctly labels response correctness.
    Section 3.1 determines the binary label c solely from the final answer; the paper notes false positives (correct answer, flawed reasoning) are possible but rare.
  • domain assumption Hidden states of the base LLM at the selected layers and tokens carry a signal that generalizes from the 1000 training questions to the test distribution.
    This is the core empirical hypothesis; Section 4.2 tests it but uses the same test sets to select L and T, so the generalization claim is partly self-referential.
  • domain assumption Comparing LiLaVe to ORM baselines trained on data from different generators is a meaningful comparison.
    Section 4.3 uses ORMs from Xiong et al. (2024) trained on Mistral-7B and DeepSeekMath data; if verifier accuracy is base-model specific, LiLaVe may have an advantage.
  • standard math Standard statistical learning assumptions for XGBoost: training and test samples are independent and identically distributed, with no leakage between them.
    The paper splits questions into train/test but does not control for potential redundancy in generated solutions or contamination of benchmarks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lightweight Latent Verifiers for Efficient Meta-Generation Strategies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SG46GRMT

@misc{pith2026250416760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lightweight Latent Verifiers for Efficient Meta-Generation Strategies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SG46GRMT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16760}
}
read the original abstract

Verifiers are auxiliary models that assess the correctness of outputs generated by base large language models (LLMs). They play a crucial role in many strategies for solving reasoning-intensive problems with LLMs. Typically, verifiers are LLMs themselves, often as large (or larger) than the base model they support, making them computationally expensive. In this work, we introduce a novel lightweight verification approach, LiLaVe, which reliably extracts correctness signals from the hidden states of the base LLM. A key advantage of LiLaVe is its ability to operate with only a small fraction of the computational budget required by traditional LLM-based verifiers. To demonstrate its practicality, we couple LiLaVe with popular meta-generation strategies, like best-of-n or self-consistency. Moreover, we design novel LiLaVe-based approaches, like conditional self-correction or conditional majority voting, that significantly improve both accuracy and efficiency in generation tasks with smaller LLMs. Our work demonstrates the fruitfulness of extracting latent information from the hidden states of LLMs, and opens the door to scalable and resource-efficient solutions for reasoning-intensive applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16760 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Predictive performance of LiLaVe on individual locations of hidden states deter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance (AUC) of LiLaVe trained and evaluated on hidden states of Llama 3.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Best-of-n, majority voting, and weighted majority voting on four datasets. For each of the methods, the number of samples per question is varied between 1 and 16. Weighted majority voting performs best for all the datasets, but the margin differs across the datasets. never self−correct threshold: 0.72 always self−correct never self−correct threshold: 0.81 always self−correct never self−correct threshold: 0.48 always… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Conditional self-correction on four datasets. The dark points indicate the performance for different score thresholds. The left-most points correspond to no self-correction (and only one sample per question generated); The right-most points correspond to unconditional …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Conditional majority voting with varying threshold s and the number of samples per question n between 1 and 256. The parameter n is shown implicitly as for fixed s it influences the total number of generated samples through the number of dataset questions scored below …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of a question from the GSM8K benchmark, followed by a couple of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An example of a question from the algebra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Transfer of performance (AUC) of LiLaVe trained and evaluated on hidden states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ablation on the architecture of LiLaVe. Methods are compared on generations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of meta-generation strategies to oracle selection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: AUC of the sum of log probabilities over the answer suffix. The results correspond [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: We observe that for different numbers of votes, different generation temperatures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Conditional majority voting and conditional self-correction for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Prompt used for the self-correction experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Prompt used for the self-reflection confidence estimation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: 0-shot prompt for the algebra linear 1d dataset. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: 8-shot prompt for GSM8K, GSM-Symbolic, and GSM-symbolic-p2 datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: 4-shot prompt for the MATH dataset. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    Marah I Abdin, Sam Ade Jacobs, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Jyoti Aneja, Ahmed Awadallah, Hany Awadalla, Nguyen Bach, Amit Bahree, Arash Bakhtiari, Harkirat S. Behl, Alon Benhaim, Misha Bilenko, Johan Bjorck, S \' e bastien Bubeck, Martin Cai, Caio C \' e sar Teodoro Mendes, Weizhu Chen, Vishrav Chaudhary, Parul Chopra, Allie Del Giorno, Gustavo de Rosa, Matthew Dix...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.14219 2024

  3. [3]

    Large language models for mathematical reasoning: Progresses and challenges

    Janice Ahn, Rishu Verma, Renze Lou, Di Liu, Rui Zhang, and Wenpeng Yin. Large language models for mathematical reasoning: Progresses and challenges. CoRR, abs/2402.00157, 2024. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2402.00157. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.00157

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.00157 2024

  4. [4]

    What learning algorithm is in-context learning? I nvestigations with linear models

    Ekin Aky \" u rek, Dale Schuurmans, Jacob Andreas, Tengyu Ma, and Denny Zhou. What learning algorithm is in-context learning? I nvestigations with linear models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023 . OpenReview.net, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=0g0X4H8yN4I

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes, 2018

    Guillaume Alain and Yoshua Bengio. Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.01644

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    The internal state of an LLM knows when it's lying, 2023

    Amos Azaria and Tom Mitchell. The internal state of an LLM knows when it's lying, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13734

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Jiang, Jia Deng, Stella Biderman, and Sean Welleck

    Zhangir Azerbayev, Hailey Schoelkopf, Keiran Paster, Marco Dos Santos, Stephen McAleer, Albert Q. Jiang, Jia Deng, Stella Biderman, and Sean Welleck. Llemma: An open language model for mathematics. CoRR, abs/2310.10631, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.10631

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.10631 2023

  8. [8]

    InternalInspector I^2 : Robust confidence estimation in LLMs through internal states, 2024

    Mohammad Beigi, Ying Shen, Runing Yang, Zihao Lin, Qifan Wang, Ankith Mohan, Jianfeng He, Ming Jin, Chang-Tien Lu, and Lifu Huang. InternalInspector I^2 : Robust confidence estimation in LLMs through internal states, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12053

    arXiv 2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models

    Maciej Besta, Nils Blach, Ales Kubicek, Robert Gerstenberger, Michal Podstawski, Lukas Gianinazzi, Joanna Gajda, Tomasz Lehmann, Hubert Niewiadomski, Piotr Nyczyk, and Torsten Hoefler. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. Proceedings of the...

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Correctness assessment of code generated by large language models using internal representations, 2025

    Tuan-Dung Bui, Thanh Trong Vu, Thu-Trang Nguyen, Son Nguyen, and Hieu Dinh Vo. Correctness assessment of code generated by large language models using internal representations, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12934

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Learning the greatest common divisor: explaining transformer predictions

    Fran c ois Charton. Learning the greatest common divisor: explaining transformer predictions. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024 . OpenReview.net, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=cmcD05NPKa

    2024

  4. [12]

    INSIDE: LLMs' internal states retain the power of hallucination detection, 2024

    Chao Chen, Kai Liu, Ze Chen, Yi Gu, Yue Wu, Mingyuan Tao, Zhihang Fu, and Jieping Ye. INSIDE: LLMs' internal states retain the power of hallucination detection, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03744

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    XGBoost : A scalable tree boosting system

    Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. XGBoost : A scalable tree boosting system. In Balaji Krishnapuram, Mohak Shah, Alexander J. Smola, Charu C. Aggarwal, Dou Shen, and Rajeev Rastogi (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Da...

    2016

  6. [14]

    ARC prize 2024: Technical report

    Fran c ois Chollet, Mike Knoop, Gregory Kamradt, and Bryan Landers. ARC prize 2024: Technical report. CoRR, abs/2412.04604, 2024. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2412.04604. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.04604

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    On the measure of intelligence, 2019

    François Chollet. On the measure of intelligence, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. CoRR, abs/2110.14168, 2021. URL https://...

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    AlphaZero -like tree-search can guide large language model decoding and training, 2024

    Xidong Feng, Ziyu Wan, Muning Wen, Stephen Marcus McAleer, Ying Wen, Weinan Zhang, and Jun Wang. AlphaZero -like tree-search can guide large language model decoding and training, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.17179

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Costa-jussà

    Javier Ferrando, Gabriele Sarti, Arianna Bisazza, and Marta R. Costa-jussà. A primer on the inner workings of transformer-based language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00208

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Friedman

    Jerome H. Friedman. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. The Annals of Statistics, 29 0 (5): 0 1189 -- 1232, 2001. doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013203451

    2001

  12. [20]

    A framework for few-shot language model evaluation, 07 2024

    Leo Gao, Jonathan Tow, Baber Abbasi, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Anthony DiPofi, Charles Foster, Laurence Golding, Jeffrey Hsu, Alain Le Noac'h, Haonan Li, Kyle McDonell, Niklas Muennighoff, Chris Ociepa, Jason Phang, Laria Reynolds, Hailey Schoelkopf, Aviya Skowron, Lintang S...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Frontiermath: A benchmark for evaluating advanced mathematical reasoning in ai, 2024

    Elliot Glazer, Ege Erdil, Tamay Besiroglu, Diego Chicharro, Evan Chen, Alex Gunning, Caroline Falkman Olsson, Jean-Stanislas Denain, Anson Ho, Emily de Oliveira Santos, Olli Järviniemi, Matthew Barnett, Robert Sandler, Matej Vrzala, Jaime Sevilla, Qiuyu Ren, Elizabeth Pratt, L...

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, Xiaokang Zhang, Xingkai Yu, Yu Wu, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Zhuoshu Li, Ziyi Gao, Aixin Liu, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Bei Feng, Chengda ...

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Language models represent space and time, 2024

    Wes Gurnee and Max Tegmark. Language models represent space and time, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02207

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Friedman

    Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome H. Friedman. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, 2nd Edition. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, 2009. ISBN 9780387848570. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/97...

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    GLoRe : When, where, and how to improve LLM reasoning via global and local refinements

    Alexander Havrilla, Sharath Chandra Raparthy, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Jane Dwivedi - Yu, Maksym Zhuravinskyi, Eric Hambro, and Roberta Raileanu. GLoRe : When, where, and how to improve LLM reasoning via global and local refinements. In Forty-first International Conference on ...

    2024

  18. [26]

    LLM Factoscope : Uncovering LLMs' factual discernment through inner states analysis, 2024

    Jinwen He, Yujia Gong, Kai Chen, Zijin Lin, Chengan Wei, and Yue Zhao. LLM Factoscope : Uncovering LLMs' factual discernment through inner states analysis, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.16374

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset. In Joaquin Vanschoren and Sai - Kit Yeung (eds.), Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet, 2024

    Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Adams Wei Yu, Xinying Song, and Denny Zhou. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01798

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Propile: Probing privacy leakage in large language models, 2023

    Siwon Kim, Sangdoo Yun, Hwaran Lee, Martin Gubri, Sungroh Yoon, and Seong Joon Oh. Propile: Probing privacy leakage in large language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.01881

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models, 2022

    Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, Yuhuai Wu, Behnam Neyshabur, Guy Gur-Ari, and Vedant Misra. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models, ...

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Let's verify step by step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let's verify step by step. CoRR, abs/2305.20050, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.20050

    2023 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Improve mathematical reasoning in language models by automated process supervision

    Liangchen Luo, Yinxiao Liu, Rosanne Liu, Samrat Phatale, Harsh Lara, Yunxuan Li, Lei Shu, Yun Zhu, Lei Meng, Jiao Sun, and Abhinav Rastogi. Improve mathematical reasoning in language models by automated process supervision. CoRR, abs/2406.06592, 2024. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2406.0...

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback, 2023

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, Shashank Gupta, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Katherine Hermann, Sean Welleck, Amir Yazdanbakhsh, and Peter Clark. Self-refine: Iterativ...

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Shreya Pathak, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivi \` e re, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, Pouya Tafti, L \' e onard Hussenot, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Adam Roberts, Aditya Barua, Alex Botev, Alex Castro - Ros, Ambrose ...

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    Magnushammer: A transformer-based approach to premise selection, 2024

    Maciej Mikuła, Szymon Tworkowski, Szymon Antoniak, Bartosz Piotrowski, Albert Qiaochu Jiang, Jin Peng Zhou, Christian Szegedy, Łukasz Kuciński, Piotr Miłoś, and Yuhuai Wu. Magnushammer: A transformer-based approach to premise selection, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.04488

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Gsm-symbolic: Understanding the limitations of mathematical reasoning in large language models, 2024

    Iman Mirzadeh, Keivan Alizadeh, Hooman Shahrokhi, Oncel Tuzel, Samy Bengio, and Mehrdad Farajtabar. Gsm-symbolic: Understanding the limitations of mathematical reasoning in large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.05229

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models

    Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, et al. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00114, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    OpenWebMath : An open dataset of high-quality mathematical web text

    Keiran Paster, Marco Dos Santos, Zhangir Azerbayev, and Jimmy Ba. OpenWebMath : An open dataset of high-quality mathematical web text. CoRR, abs/2310.06786, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.06786

    2023 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Confidence in the reasoning of large language models, 2024

    Yudi Pawitan and Chris Holmes. Confidence in the reasoning of large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15296

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Analysing mathematical reasoning abilities of neural models, 2019

    David Saxton, Edward Grefenstette, Felix Hill, and Pushmeet Kohli. Analysing mathematical reasoning abilities of neural models, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.01557

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Glu variants improve transformer, 2020

    Noam Shazeer. Glu variants improve transformer, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.05202

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning, 2023

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Scaling LLM test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters, 2024

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling LLM test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03314

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Katherine Tian, Eric Mitchell, Allan Zhou, Archit Sharma, Rafael Rafailov, Huaxiu Yao, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D. Manning. Just ask for calibration: Strategies for eliciting calibrated confidence scores from language models fine-tuned with human feedback, 2023. URL https...

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations

    Trieu H Trinh, Yuhuai Wu, Quoc V Le, He He, and Thang Luong. Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations. Nature, 625 0 (7995): 0 476--482, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback, 2022

    Jonathan Uesato, Nate Kushman, Ramana Kumar, Francis Song, Noah Siegel, Lisa Wang, Antonia Creswell, Geoffrey Irving, and Irina Higgins. Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.14275

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Peiyi Wang, Lei Li, Zhihong Shao, R. X. Xu, Damai Dai, Yifei Li, Deli Chen, Y. Wu, and Zhifang Sui. Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce LLMs step-by-step without human annotations, 2024 a . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.08935

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Le, Ed H

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V. Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali,...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Multi-step problem solving through a verifier: An empirical analysis on model-induced process supervision

    Zihan Wang, Yunxuan Li, Yuexin Wu, Liangchen Luo, Le Hou, Hongkun Yu, and Jingbo Shang. Multi-step problem solving through a verifier: An empirical analysis on model-induced process supervision. In Yaser Al - Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun - Nung Chen (eds.), Findings of the A...

    2024

  42. [50]

    Chi, Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Sanmi Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh (eds.), Ad...

    2022

  43. [51]

    NaturalProver : Grounded mathematical proof generation with language models, 2022

    Sean Welleck, Jiacheng Liu, Ximing Lu, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. NaturalProver : Grounded mathematical proof generation with language models, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12910

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    From decoding to meta-generation: Inference-time algorithms for large language models, 2024

    Sean Welleck, Amanda Bertsch, Matthew Finlayson, Hailey Schoelkopf, Alex Xie, Graham Neubig, Ilia Kulikov, and Zaid Harchaoui. From decoding to meta-generation: Inference-time algorithms for large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.16838

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Inference scaling laws: An empirical analysis of compute-optimal inference for problem-solving with language models

    Yangzhen Wu, Zhiqing Sun, Shanda Li, Sean Welleck, and Yiming Yang. Inference scaling laws: An empirical analysis of compute-optimal inference for problem-solving with language models. 2025. URL https://openreview.net/pdf?id=VNckp7JEHn

    2025

  46. [54]

    An implementation of generative prm

    Wei Xiong, Hanning Zhang, Nan Jiang, and Tong Zhang. An implementation of generative prm. https://github.com/RLHFlow/RLHF-Reward-Modeling, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. Tree of Thoughts : Deliberate problem solving with large language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10601

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Physics of language models: Part 2.1, grade-school math and the hidden reasoning process, 2024

    Tian Ye, Zicheng Xu, Yuanzhi Li, and Zeyuan Allen-Zhu. Physics of language models: Part 2.1, grade-school math and the hidden reasoning process, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.20311

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Ovm, outcome-supervised value models for planning in mathematical reasoning, 2024

    Fei Yu, Anningzhe Gao, and Benyou Wang. Ovm, outcome-supervised value models for planning in mathematical reasoning, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09724

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. STaR : Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. In Sanmi Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neural Infor...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.