Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Guided by Gut: Efficient Test-Time Scaling with Reinforced Intrinsic Confidence

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A self-guided search can give small reasoning models the accuracy of much larger models without an external verifier.

desk verdict Useful and cheap TTS idea with real promise on non-tuned benchmarks, but the central reward equations are sign-wrong as written and the AIME headline overstates the mean results. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20325 v1 pith:2PT4NGW3 submitted 2025-05-23 cs.CL cs.AI

Amirhosein Ghasemabadi , Keith G. Mills , Baochun Li , Di Niu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords test-timescalingreinforcementlearningconfidencecalibrationtreesearchprocessrewardmodelsmathematicalreasoninglargelanguage
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

This paper claims that a small language model can be made into a cheap, self-guided reasoner by steering test-time tree search with its own token-level confidence and step novelty, after a short reinforcement-learning phase calibrates those confidence scores. The method, Guided by Gut (GG), is tested on competition mathematics, where the authors report that a 1.5B-parameter model matches or beats a 32B-parameter chain-of-thought model and a 7B model approaches a 70B model, while using far less GPU memory and no external Process Reward Model (PRM). If true, this matters because test-time scaling would no longer require a large verifier model or hundreds of samples, putting strong reasoning within reach of local hardware. The paper also reports that GG runs about 8x faster and uses 4-5x less memory than PRM-guided search at comparable accuracy, and cuts KV-cache memory roughly in half relative to Best-of-N.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the intrinsic reward $r_t = \lambda_C C(s_t) + \lambda_N N(s_t)$, where $C(s_t)$ is the average log probability of the tokens in a proposed reasoning step and $N(s_t)$ counts the new tokens the step introduces relative to paths already explored. This reward replaces the Process Reward Model inside Diverse Verifier Tree Search (DVTS), a beam-search variant that splits the path budget into independent subtrees expanded greedily. The confidence signal is made usable by a GRPO fine-tuning phase whose reward is $1+C(R_i)^4$ for correct final answers and $1-10C(R_i)^4$ for incorrect final answers, so confident mistakes are penalized hardest and the confidence distributions of correct and wrong completions separate.

What would settle it

Take the confidence scores GG assigns to each reasoning step on AIME-style problems not used in RL calibration and check whether steps that lead to the right answer have higher mean confidence than steps that lead to wrong answers; if that separation reverses, the confidence signal is not guiding the search and the reported gains should disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the search signal normally supplied by a Process Reward Model can be replaced by two intrinsic quantities a language model already emits: the mean log-probability of the tokens in a proposed reasoning step, read as confidence, and the fraction of new tokens the step introduces relative to paths already explored, read as novelty. The authors show that raw confidence is overconfident on wrong answers, and that a GRPO fine-tuning phase with a reward of $1+C(R_i)^4$ for correct completions and $1-10C(R_i)^4$ for incorrect completions separates the confidence distributions of correct and incorrect completions. With that calibrated signal feeding the reward $r_t = \lambda_C C(s_t) + \lambda_N N(s_t)$ inside a Diverse Verifier Tree Search, they report that 1.5B and 7B models match or exceed the accuracy of 32B and 70B chain-of-thought models on AIME24/25, MATH500, and AMC23, while using up to 10x less GPU memory and no external verifier.

Load-bearing premise

The confidence signal that guides the search must stay calibrated on problems the model was not fine-tuned on, because the RL calibration step uses only a small set of 817 training problems; if that transfer fails on harder competition problems, the accuracy gains shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the tested benchmarks, GG lets a 1.5B model reach accuracy comparable to a 32B chain-of-thought model and a 7B model approach a 70B model, at a fraction of the GPU memory.
  • GG achieves accuracy comparable to PRM-guided DVTS while running about 8x faster and using 4-5x less GPU memory, because no second verifier model has to be loaded.
  • At equal path budgets, GG uses roughly half the KV-cache memory of Best-of-N, so deeper searches fit within the same memory envelope.
  • Because GG needs no external verifier, test-time scaling becomes feasible for locally deployed reasoning models rather than rack-scale servers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test this directly, but the same calibrated confidence-plus-novelty signal should transfer to other structured generation tasks such as code repair or planning, because the method never trains a task-specific verifier.
  • A consequence the authors leave implicit is that the separation between the confidence distributions shown in Figure 3 could be quantified and used to predict, before running search, which base models will benefit most from GG.
  • The one-day fine-tuning on two A100 GPUs is a fixed training cost; the practical break-even point against Best-of-N or PRM methods depends on how many inference queries amortize that cost, which the paper does not compute.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 Guided by Gut (GG), a test-time scaling method that replaces external process reward models with intrinsic signals from the LLM itself: token-level confidence and step novelty. Confidence is obtained from the model's generation probabilities and is refined by a GRPO-based reinforcement learning stage on the LIMO dataset, after which a Diverse Verifier Tree Search (DVTS) is guided by a weighted confidence-plus-novelty reward and final answers are chosen by confidence-weighted voting. Experiments on AIME24, AIME25, MATH500, and AMC compare GG against CoT, Best-of-N, and PRM-guided search, reporting that small models (1.5B, 7B) match or exceed much larger models while using less GPU memory and no external verifier. The paper also reports speed and memory advantages over PRM-based methods and a roughly 50% KV-cache reduction over BoN.

Significance. If the reported results hold, GG is a practically valuable contribution: it offers a verifier-free test-time scaling method with large efficiency gains, and the paper makes several commendable efforts, including public code, multi-seed reporting in Table 3, and ablations of the confidence reward, novelty signal, and beam width. The central idea, that RL-calibrated intrinsic confidence can replace a PRM in guiding tree search, is interesting and worth testing. However, the current manuscript has an internal inconsistency in the definition of confidence that affects the core reward, and the headline 'small model matches large model' claim rests on max-over-seeds numbers rather than mean accuracy. The evaluation also tunes key hyperparameters on AIME24 and then reports AIME24 as a headline result. These issues must be resolved before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2–3.3, Eqs. (3) and (6)] Equation (3) defines C(s_t) as the mean log-token-probability, which is non-positive (typically in the range of roughly -0.1 to -2 for ordinary token probabilities), whereas the worked examples in Figure 2 and the distribution plot in Figure 3 show confidence values between 0 and 1. Under Eq. (3), the fourth-power reward in Eq. (6) is monotonically decreasing in the intended confidence ordering: a high-confidence step with log-probability -0.1 gives C^4 ≈ 1e-4, while a low-confidence step with log-probability -2 gives C^4 = 16, so the correct-answer reward is larger for low-confidence outputs and the incorrect-answer penalty is larger for high-confidence outputs. This is the opposite of the calibration objective stated in Section 3.3. If the implementation instead uses average token probability or exp(mean log p), then Eqs. (3)–(6) do not describe the evaluated method, and Algorithm 1's confidence-weighted voting is not reproducible from the specification. Please correct the definition of C(s_t), and confirm that the RL reward, the search reward, and all confidence values in Figures 2–3 and Tables 3–4 are computed consistently with that corrected definition.
  2. [§4.2, Tables 1 and 3; Abstract] The abstract and Section 4.2 claim that a 1.5B GG model matches or surpasses the 32B CoT model on AIME24. Table 3 shows that this holds only for the max-over-seeds value (66.7 vs. 66.9); the mean AIME24 accuracy of GG with N=32 is 58.9, which is substantially below the 32B CoT mean of 66.9. Since AIME24 contains only 30 problems, a difference of one or two questions (about 3.3 percentage points) is also well within sampling noise. The paper should report mean accuracy with seed-level variance or confidence intervals when making cross-model comparisons, and the abstract's 'matching or surpassing' claim should be restricted to what the mean results actually support.
  3. [§5 and Appendix A.1, Tables 5–7] Several key hyperparameters are selected on AIME24 and then AIME24 is reported as a headline benchmark. Specifically, the novelty weight λ_N and beam width M are chosen using AIME24 in Tables 6 and 7 (λ_N=0.5, M=2), and the reward exponent in Eq. (6) is fixed rather than ablated. This creates a selection effect: part of the reported AIME24 gain is tuning advantage, not predictive performance. Please either tune hyperparameters on a separate development set (for example, a subset of MATH or a validation split of AIME25), or report the full sensitivity grid and clearly state that AIME24 was used for hyperparameter selection.
  4. [§4.1 and Table 4] The central assumption of the method is that the RL fine-tuning on LIMO produces confidence signals that remain reliable on out-of-distribution benchmarks such as AIME24/25, MATH500, and AMC. Table 4 demonstrates the benefit of the confidence reward on AIME24 only, and no per-benchmark calibration evidence (e.g., confidence-reliability diagrams, or confidence separation for correct vs. incorrect answers on MATH500 and AMC) is provided. Given that the confidence signal is the only guide for search and voting, please report calibration transfer for each evaluation benchmark, or at least show that the correct-vs-incorrect confidence gap persists after fine-tuning on those benchmarks. Without this, the generalization of the calibration step remains an unverified load-bearing assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (8)] The notation in Eq. (8) uses r_i both for the reward and for the probability ratio in the clipped surrogate objective; standard GRPO/PPO uses a separate symbol, e.g., π_θ/π_θ_old or ρ_i, for the importance ratio. Please clarify the notation to avoid confusion.
  2. [§4.2, paragraph reporting BoN comparison] The sentence 'GG attains 10% and 3.3% performance' should read something like 'GG improves over BoN by 10 and 3.3 percentage points on AIME24 and AIME25, respectively.' The current wording is unclear and numerically inaccurate.
  3. [Algorithm 1, line 21] Line 21 says the final answer A* is selected by a 'confidence-weighted vote defined in Eq. 5,' but Eq. (5) defines the confidence of a single reasoning chain, not a voting aggregation rule. Please specify exactly how per-chain confidences are converted into a weighted vote (e.g., sum of C(R_i) or C(R_i)^4 over chains yielding each answer).
  4. [§3.2, Novelty definition] The novelty term N(s_t) is described as 'the proportion of new tokens introduced by the candidate step st relative to tokens already explored within the current reasoning context,' but the text does not define whether this is computed over all previous subtrees or only the current path, nor how partial token overlap is counted. Please make this definition precise.
  5. [Table 4 caption] The caption contains a typo ('onr AIME24') and the table caption should also state the number of seeds used for the reported scores, matching the protocol in Table 3.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity; however, the headline AIME24 result is partially a fitted input because key GG hyperparameters and the RL reward variant are selected on AIME24 itself.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section A.1, Tables 5-7; Section 5, Table 4; reported in Section 4.2, Table 1]
    "Table 4: Effectiveness of RL fine-tuning on AIME24 ... Confidence Reward (Ours) 58.9% ... Table 6: Novelty weight (λN) ablation on AIME24 (New Token Counting). Best score bold. Novelty Weight (λN) Score ↑ 0.0 57.5 0.5 58.9 1.0 51.9 ... Table 7: Beam width (M) ablation on AIME24. Total paths N = 32. Best score bold. M Trees (N/M) Score ↑ 2 16 58.9 4 8 47.0 8 4 44.0 ... Thus, we selected word counting for N(st)."

    The tables are selection instruments, not validations: the novelty method, λN=0.5, M=2, and the 'Confidence Reward (Ours)' RL variant are chosen because they maximize AIME24 accuracy. The same selected configuration is then used to produce the AIME24 column in Table 1, which is reported as evidence that GG 'enables smaller models ... to achieve accuracy matching or surpassing significantly larger models.' For AIME24, the reported number is the objective used to pick hyperparameters, so it is partly an in-sample fit rather than an out-of-sample prediction. The other benchmarks (AIME25, MATH500, AMC) were not used for this selection, so the overall claim retains independent content.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular in an equation-to-equation sense. The intrinsic reward (Eq. 4) is defined from token probabilities and token novelty; Eqs. (5)-(9) specify a GRPO update using correctness labels to calibrate confidence; Algorithm 1 is a concrete DVTS procedure. DVTS and GRPO are attributed to prior independent work, and the paper contains no load-bearing self-citations. The benchmarks AIME25, MATH500, and AMC are external and were not used for any selection, so the broader claim has independent content. The score of 4 reflects one genuine circular element: AIME24 is used as the selection set for the novelty method, λN, beam width M, and the RL reward variant (Tables 4-7), and the same selected configuration is then reported as the headline AIME24 result in Table 1. That makes the AIME24 number partially a fitted input rather than an independent prediction. The skeptic's Eq. (3)/Eq. (6) sign-inversion concern is a correctness and reproducibility risk, not a circularity, and does not contribute to this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on confidence-calibration transfer and a set of hand-picked search hyperparameters. Several hyperparameters (lambda_N, M) were tuned on AIME24 itself, which is both a reported benchmark and the tuning set, inflating that benchmark's numbers. The exact values of lambda_C and k are not reported, so any reproduction would need to guess them. The method does not introduce new physical entities.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda_N (novelty weight) = 0.5
    Chosen via AIME24 ablation (Table 6); balances novelty against confidence in Eq. (4).
  • lambda_C (confidence weight) = not stated
    Mentioned in Eq. (4) but never given a value; appears to be implicitly fixed, which is an unstated free parameter.
  • k (number of recent steps in confidence aggregation) = not stated
    In Eq. (5), k weights the last k reasoning steps; its value is never reported.
  • M (beam width) = 2
    Selected via AIME24 ablation (Table 7); larger M (4, 8) gave 47.0 and 44.0 vs 58.9 for M=2.
  • N (total paths) = 32 or 64
    Evaluation budget matched to BoN; performance varies with N, e.g., 1.5B GG AIME25 40.0 at N=32 vs 46.7 at N=64.
  • Reward exponent 4 in Eq. (6) = 4
    Hand-designed exponent in the confidence reward; no sensitivity analysis is provided for this choice.
  • GRPO training hyperparameters (LoRA rank, learning rate, epochs) = rank 128, alpha 128, lr 2e-6, 3 epochs
    Standard choices, but they affect calibration quality; no sweep is reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Token average log-probability (Eq. 3) is a reliable indicator of step correctness.
    The method's central signal; the paper motivates it with calibration but does not prove it holds across benchmarks.
  • domain assumption New-token count approximates semantic novelty of a reasoning step.
    The novelty term is defined as proportion of new tokens; cosine similarity is shown to be similar, but the choice is heuristic.
  • domain assumption LIMO training distribution is representative enough for confidence calibration to transfer.
    Only 817 LIMO examples are used for RL fine-tuning; transfer to AIME and MATH is assumed.
  • domain assumption The 'Final Answer' prompt injection does not change answer distribution.
    Section 3.4: appending '**Final Answer**' is used to force completion; no validation of its effect is given.
  • domain assumption GRPO fine-tuning preserves base reasoning ability while adjusting confidence.
    The reward in Eq. (6) includes C(R_i) and correctness, but the update may shift reasoning; no separate reasoning-quality metric is tracked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Guided by Gut: Efficient Test-Time Scaling with Reinforced Intrinsic Confidence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2PT4NGW3

@misc{pith2026250520325,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Guided by Gut: Efficient Test-Time Scaling with Reinforced Intrinsic Confidence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2PT4NGW3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20325}
}
read the original abstract

Test-Time Scaling (TTS) methods for enhancing Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning often incur substantial computational costs, primarily due to extensive reliance on external Process Reward Models (PRMs) or sampling methods like Best-of-N (BoN). This paper introduces Guided by Gut (GG), an efficient self-guided TTS framework that achieves PRM-level performance without costly external verifier models. Our method employs a lightweight tree search guided solely by intrinsic LLM signals, token-level confidence and step novelty. One critical innovation is improving the reliability of internal confidence estimates via a targeted reinforcement learning fine-tuning phase. Empirical evaluations on challenging mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that GG enables smaller models (e.g., 1.5B parameters) to achieve accuracy matching or surpassing significantly larger models (e.g., 32B-70B parameters), while reducing GPU memory usage by up to 10x. Compared to PRM-based methods, GG achieves comparable accuracy with 8x faster inference speeds and 4-5x lower memory usage. Additionally, GG reduces KV cache memory usage by approximately 50% compared to the BoN strategy, facilitating more efficient and practical deployment of TTS techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20325 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We compare the performance and GPU VRAM usage of Guided by Gut (GG; stars) to Best￾of-N (BoN; triangles) and Chain-of-Thought (CoT; circles) on several LLMs. GG achieves better ac￾curacy at much lower memory cost (log-scaled). Enhancing the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) often requires significant com￾putational resources through model scaling [1, 23, 31] or complex inference strategies [13, 50]. Test-T… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of reasoning generation strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Answer Confidence Distribution Across Training Settings. Each subplot shows the normalized distribution of confdence scores for correct (green) and incorrect (orange) completions across different fine-tuning strategies. The vertical dashed lines mark the mean confidence for correct and wrong completions, respectively. The base model (left) is generally overconfident, with incorrect completions receiving high confide… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Probing the Difficulty Perception Mechanism of Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs linearly encode math-problem difficulty in their final-token representations, and specific final-layer attention heads are specialized for easy vs hard problems.

  2. Charting the Future of Scholarly Knowledge with AI: A Community Perspective

    cs.DL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A community perspective on how AI can support scholarly knowledge extraction, organization, and communication, with a proposed classification and ethical considerations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Achiam, S

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Aime 2024, 2024

    AI-MO. Aime 2024, 2024. URL https://huggingface.co/datasets/AI-MO/ aimo-validation-aime

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Amc 2023, 2024

    AI-MO. Amc 2023, 2024. URL https://huggingface.co/datasets/AI-MO/ aimo-validation-amc

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    S. Bai, K. Chen, X. Liu, J. Wang, W. Ge, S. Song, K. Dang, P. Wang, S. Wang, J. Tang, et al. Qwen2. 5-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Beeching, L

    E. Beeching, L. Tunstall, and S. Rush. Scaling test-time compute with open models. URL https: //huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/blogpost-scaling-test-time-compute

    work page

  6. [6]

    Brown, J

    B. Brown, J. Juravsky, R. Ehrlich, R. Clark, Q. V . Le, C. Ré, and A. Mirhoseini. Large language monkeys: Scaling inference compute with repeated sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21787, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    T. Dao. Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08691, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    H. Face. Open r1: A fully open reproduction of deepseek-r1, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    D. Guo, D. Yang, H. Zhang, J. Song, R. Zhang, R. Xu, Q. Zhu, S. Ma, P. Wang, X. Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hendrycks, C

    D. Hendrycks, C. Burns, S. Kadavath, A. Arora, S. Basart, E. Tang, D. Song, and J. Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2), 2021. URL https://openrevi...

    2021

  3. [11]

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, W. Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Huang, L

    X. Huang, L. L. Zhang, K.-T. Cheng, F. Yang, and M. Yang. Fewer is more: Boosting llm reasoning with reinforced context pruning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08901, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Y . Ji, J. Li, H. Ye, K. Wu, J. Xu, L. Mo, and M. Zhang. Test-time computing: from system-1 thinking to system-2 thinking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02497, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Lightman, V

    H. Lightman, V . Kosaraju, Y . Burda, H. Edwards, B. Baker, T. Lee, J. Leike, J. Schulman, I. Sutskever, and K. Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    R. Liu, J. Gao, J. Zhao, K. Zhang, X. Li, B. Qi, W. Ouyang, and B. Zhou. Can 1b llm surpass 405b llm? rethinking compute-optimal test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06703, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Z. Liu, C. Chen, W. Li, P. Qi, T. Pang, C. Du, W. S. Lee, and M. Lin. Understanding r1-zero-like training: A critical perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20783, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter. SGDR: stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings, 2017. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Skq89Scxx

    2017

  10. [18]

    M. Luo, S. Tan, J. Wong, X. Shi, W. Y . Tang, M. Roongta, C. Cai, J. Luo, L. E. Li, R. A. Popa, and I. Stoica. DeepScaleR: Surpassing O1-preview with a 1.5B model by scaling RL, 2025. URL https://pretty-radio-b75.notion.site/ DeepScaleR-Surpassing-O1-Preview-with-a-1-5B-Model-...

    2025

  11. [19]

    T. Q. Luong, X. Zhang, Z. Jie, P. Sun, X. Jin, and H. Li. Reft: Reasoning with reinforced fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08967, 3, 2024. 10

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Muennighoff, Z

    N. Muennighoff, Z. Yang, W. Shi, X. L. Li, L. Fei-Fei, H. Hajishirzi, L. Zettlemoyer, P. Liang, E. Candès, and T. Hashimoto. s1: Simple test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19393, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Mukherjee, A

    S. Mukherjee, A. Chinta, T. Kim, T. A. Sharma, and D. Hakkani-Tür. Premise-augmented reasoning chains improve error identification in math reasoning with llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02362, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Learning to reason with llms, 2024

    OpenAI. Learning to reason with llms, 2024. URL https://openai.com/index/ learning-to-reason-with-llms/

    2024

  15. [23]

    Ouyang, J

    L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27730–27744, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Razghandi, S

    A. Razghandi, S. M. H. Hosseini, and M. S. Baghshah. Cer: Confidence enhanced reasoning in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14634, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Reimers and I

    N. Reimers and I. Gurevych. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 11 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Schulman, F

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Z. Shao, P. Wang, Q. Zhu, R. Xu, J. Song, X. Bi, H. Zhang, M. Zhang, Y . Li, Y . Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Snell, J

    C. Snell, J. Lee, K. Xu, and A. Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03314, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Taubenfeld, T

    A. Taubenfeld, T. Sheffer, E. Ofek, A. Feder, A. Goldstein, Z. Gekhman, and G. Yona. Confidence improves self-consistency in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06233, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    K. Team, A. Du, B. Gao, B. Xing, C. Jiang, C. Chen, C. Li, C. Xiao, C. Du, C. Liao, et al. Kimi k1. 5: Scaling reinforcement learning with llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12599, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Villalobos, A

    P. Villalobos, A. Ho, J. Sevilla, T. Besiroglu, L. Heim, and M. Hobbhahn. Will we run out of data? limits of llm scaling based on human-generated data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.04325, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    von Werra, Y

    L. von Werra, Y . Belkada, L. Tunstall, E. Beeching, T. Thrush, N. Lambert, S. Huang, K. Rasul, and Q. Gallouédec. Trl: Transformer reinforcement learning. https://github.com/huggingface/trl, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    G. Wan, Y . Wu, J. Chen, and S. Li. Dynamic self-consistency: Leveraging reasoning paths for efficient llm sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.17017, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. Wang, M. Fang, Z. Wan, M. Wen, J. Zhu, A. Liu, Z. Gong, Y . Song, L. Chen, L. M. Ni, et al. Openr: An open source framework for advanced reasoning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09671, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    P. Wang, L. Li, Z. Shao, R. Xu, D. Dai, Y . Li, D. Chen, Y . Wu, and Z. Sui. Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08935, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, D. Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Y . Wu, Y . Wang, T. Du, S. Jegelka, and Y . Wang. When more is less: Understanding chain-of-thought length in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07266, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Y . Xie, K. Kawaguchi, Y . Zhao, J. X. Zhao, M.-Y . Kan, J. He, and M. Xie. Self-evaluation guided beam search for reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:41618–41650, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Y . Xie, A. Goyal, W. Zheng, M.-Y . Kan, T. P. Lillicrap, K. Kawaguchi, and M. Shieh. Monte carlo tree search boosts reasoning via iterative preference learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00451, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Xiong, H

    W. Xiong, H. Zhang, N. Jiang, and T. Zhang. An implementation of generative prm, 2024. 11

    2024

  33. [41]

    A. Yang, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Li, D. Liu, F. Huang, H. Wei, H. Lin, J. Yang, J. Tu, J. Zhang, J. Yang, J. Yang, J. Zhou, J. Lin, K. Dang, K. Lu, K. Bao, K. Yang, L. Yu, M. Li, M. Xue, P. Zhang, Q. Zhu, R. Men, R. Lin, T. Li, T. Xia, X. Ren, X. Ren, Y ...

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Gao, B. Yu, C. Li, D. Liu, J. Tu, J. Zhou, J. Lin, et al. Qwen2. 5-math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via self-improvement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12122, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Y . Ye, Z. Huang, Y . Xiao, E. Chern, S. Xia, and P. Liu. Limo: Less is more for reasoning, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.03387

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Aime 2025, 2025

    yentinglin. Aime 2025, 2025. URL https://huggingface.co/datasets/yentinglin/aime_2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Q. Yu, Z. Zhang, R. Zhu, Y . Yuan, X. Zuo, Y . Yue, T. Fan, G. Liu, L. Liu, X. Liu, et al. Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14476, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    W. Zeng, Y . Huang, Q. Liu, W. Liu, K. He, Z. Ma, and J. He. Simplerl-zoo: Investigating and taming zero reinforcement learning for open base models in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18892, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Zhang, C

    Z. Zhang, C. Zheng, Y . Wu, B. Zhang, R. Lin, B. Yu, D. Liu, J. Zhou, and J. Lin. The lessons of developing process reward models in mathematical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07301, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Zheng, Z

    C. Zheng, Z. Zhang, B. Zhang, R. Lin, K. Lu, B. Yu, D. Liu, J. Zhou, and J. Lin. Processbench: Identifying process errors in mathematical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06559, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Zhong, W

    J. Zhong, W. Shen, Y . Li, S. Gao, H. Lu, Y . Chen, Y . Zhang, W. Zhou, J. Gu, and L. Zou. A comprehensive survey of reward models: Taxonomy, applications, challenges, and future.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12328, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Z. Zhou, X. Ning, K. Hong, T. Fu, J. Xu, S. Li, Y . Lou, L. Wang, Z. Yuan, X. Li, et al. A survey on efficient inference for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14294, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Final Answer

    zwhe99. amc23 dataset. https://huggingface.co/datasets/zwhe99/amc23, 2023. Accessed: 2025-05-12. 12 Table 5: Novelty method abla- tion on AIME24. Best Score bold. Novelty Method Score ↑ New Token Counting 58.9 Cosine Similarity 58.4 Table 6: Novelty weight ( λN ) ablation on A...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.