REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by
Boosting LLM Reasoning via Spontaneous Self-Correction
T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read A single-pass training scheme lets an LLM verify and rewrite its own math solutions while generating them, lifting accuracy on three benchmarks.
desk verdict SPOC is a useful RL recipe for math reasoning, but the paper's own per-turn tables show the correction loop adds 0-2 points - the mechanism claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the alternating message sequence $y_1, v_1, \dots, y_L, v_L$, where $y_l$ is a full solution attempt and $v_l$ is a verification that must end in a Yes/No conclusion; the model learns to treat a No as a request to rewrite and a Yes as the signal to stop. Two design pieces carry the argument: balanced Pair-SFT, which pairs the base model's wrong solutions with verifications that reject them and its correct solutions with verifications that accept them, with incorrect-message tokens masked during training, and message-wise online RL, which scores every solution message by final-answer match and every verification message by whether its Yes/No matches the true correctness of the preceding solution. Special end-of-message tokens let the model switch roles within one response, and the Corr reward matrix gives the joint proposer-verifier policy a unique Nash equilibrium.
What would settle it
On MATH500 with the SPOC-trained Llama-3.1-8B model, decode each question in three modes: normal dynamic stopping, always force a second attempt after the first solution, and never allow a second attempt. If always-forcing equals dynamic stopping, the gain is really just extra solution rollouts rather than the verifier's decision; if dynamic stopping beats both fixed modes, the verification signal is what carries the improvement.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery is that a language model can be made to interleave solution attempts with self-verification in a single autoregressive pass, and that training the two roles together, not just training the solution proposer, is what makes self-correction pay off. The trajectory $\tau = (y_1, v_1, \dots, y_L, v_L)$ ends when a verification says Yes, so the model's own judgments control how much inference-time compute is spent. The paper shows this behavior can be bootstrapped with balanced Pair-SFT data built from the initial model's rollouts, then improved by message-wise online RL with rewards for both correct solutions ($r_{sl}$) and correct verifications ($r_{vf}$). With the Corr reward setting, which has a unique Nash equilibrium, SPOC reports consistent pass@1 gains across model sizes; with the RLOO optimizer on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama base models, the reported accuracy reaches 87.2%/94.6% on MATH500 and 87.5%/92.5% on AMC23 for the 8B/70B variants.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that the model's learned Yes/No verification is accurate enough that a No usually points to a genuinely wrong solution; if the verifier rejects correct answers or accepts wrong ones too often, the correction loop stops helping and can start hurting.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Closed-loop self-correction pipelines that need hand-crafted reflection prompts or oracle feedback can be replaced by a single multi-turn generation, which simplifies deployment.
- Optimizing verification correctness is as important as optimizing solution correctness: the Corr reward setting outperforms variants that only reward correct final solutions.
- Inference-time compute is allocated dynamically: weaker models spend extra turns correcting early mistakes, while stronger models stop after a correct first attempt.
- The gains compound with stronger base models and with the RLOO optimizer, not just with the default RAFT updates, indicating the method scales with model capability.
- Iterating the PairSFT-RL procedure gives further gains on harder competition problems, with the second iteration adding up to 10 points on AMC23 for Llama-3.1-70B.
Reading between the lines
- My inference: the same proposer-verifier loop applied to partial solution steps, with step-level process rewards, is the natural next extension; the paper names long chain-of-thought reasoning as future work.
- My inference: because the only external signal is a rule-based final-answer check, the recipe should transfer to other domains with verifiable outputs, such as code, formal proofs, or constraint problems, but verifier accuracy must be re-established in each domain.
- My inference: the per-turn diagnostics put the small model's bottleneck in the verifier rather than the proposer: at 80.2% verification accuracy, the turn-1-to-turn-2 gain on MATH500 is only 2.0 points, so improving verifier reliability may pay off more than adding solution rollouts.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes SPOC, a training-and-inference framework intended to make an LLM spontaneously interleave solution attempts with self-verification in a single generation pass, terminating when verification succeeds. The method has two training stages: Pair-SFT, which builds multi-turn correction trajectories from the base model's own correct and incorrect rollouts, and an online RL stage (RAFT or RLOO) with message-level rule-based rewards. The authors frame the interaction between proposer and verifier as a two-player extensive-form game with shared parameters. Experiments on MATH500, AMC23, and AIME24 over Llama-3.1-8B/70B, Llama-3.3-70B, and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B/70B report consistent gains over the base models, with the largest numbers on the small DeepSeek model using RLOO (87.2% on MATH500, 87.5% on AMC23, 50.0% on AIME24). The core claim is that spontaneous self-correction, rather than the first-pass solution quality or additional test-time tokens, drives these gains.
Significance. If the mechanism were properly isolated, SPOC would be a significant contribution: it offers a training-only route to test-time scaling of mathematical reasoning without a stronger teacher, and it demonstrates that message-level rewards and simple RL algorithms can produce large gains on top of a strong verifier-format initialization. The RLOO results on DeepSeek-R1-Distill models are particularly suggestive. The paper does not release code, but the algorithms and prompt templates are described in enough detail for close replication. However, the significance is conditional on establishing that the interleaved verification/correction loop itself is the source of the gains; the current evidence does not establish this, and the explicit reflection instruction in the evaluation prompt further weakens the 'spontaneous' framing.
major comments (4)
- [Section 4.2, Tables 2, 6, 7] The per-turn results do not support the paper's central attribution of the gains to self-correction. On MATH500, Llama-3.1-8B reaches 59.0 at turn 1 and 61.0 after correction (delta = 2.0), while the 70B and 3.3-70B models gain only 0.4 and 0.0 points; on AMC23, Llama-3.3-70B drops from 29/40 to 28/40 (delta = -2.5), and on AIME24 the 8B model improves by 1/30. Thus the bulk of the headline 8.8/11.6-point gains over the base already exists before any correction occurs. The authors should report accuracy when inference is stopped at turn 1, include per-turn deltas with intervals, and run an ablation in which the verification/correction loop is disabled while the SFT and RL training are held fixed; without this, the title claim that self-correction drives the improvement is unsupported.
- [Section 4.1 and Table 1] The main baseline comparisons are confounded by prompt template and inference-time compute. SPOC is evaluated with the SPOC simple COT template (Figure 7) and up to 6,144 generation tokens, while SFT, RAFT, and PairSFT use single-turn COT prompts and, presumably, much shorter generations. The reported gains could therefore come from the explicit 'reflect... rewrite' instruction, from the additional tokens spent on verification, or from the training data itself, rather than from the proposed mechanism. The authors should add matched baselines: a single-turn version of the SPOC-finetuned model (stopping after the first solution), and a single-turn baseline with the same token budget, and they should report average generated tokens per question.
- [Figure 7 and Section 4.1] The evaluation prompt explicitly instructs the model to reflect after each solution attempt and to rewrite the solution if the verification is 'No'. This is an external trigger of the correction behavior, which is exactly the closed-loop design the paper contrasts with. The term 'spontaneous' is therefore not warranted by the current evaluation. The authors should evaluate with a prompt that omits the reflection/rewrite instruction, or demonstrate that the behavior persists without it, before claiming spontaneity.
- [Table 5 and Appendix C] The verifier diagnostics are not connected to correction outcomes. The verifier has substantial error rates, for example 34.1% false negatives for Llama-3.1-8B on MATH500 and nonzero false-positive rates on all tasks, but Tables 2, 6, and 7 report only aggregate per-turn deltas. To support the claim that self-verification enables beneficial correction, the authors should report the net effect of the loop conditioned on verifier correctness, for instance the correct-to-incorrect and incorrect-to-correct transition rates when the verifier is right versus wrong, and quantify how often verification errors destroy value.
minor comments (6)
- [Section 3.2] The paper says that reweighting the positive and negative Pair-SFT subsets to 'approximately the same scale' is important for verification accuracy, but it provides no ratio and no sensitivity analysis; since this is a free parameter in the pipeline, it should be specified in the implementation details.
- [Section 2] The sentence 'Xiong et al. (2023) re-attempts a solution within the verification' appears to cite the wrong paper: the reference list's Xiong et al. (2023) is about iterative preference learning, while the self-rewarding-correction work is Xiong et al. (2025).
- [Appendix C.2] The appendix contains the leftover editorial sentence 'We will include both tables in the appendix of our revised manuscript'; the tables are already present, so this sentence should be removed.
- [Page 2, author line] The author line lists 'Yen-Ting 1' without a surname; this should be corrected.
- [Section 3.1] The text says 'this objective has a close-form solution'; it should be 'closed-form solution', and the notation 'N 0' should be 'N_0'.
- [Table 5] The confusion matrices in Table 5 would be clearer with explicit row and column labels such as 'actual correct/incorrect' and 'predicted correct/incorrect', since the current header abbreviations are easy to misread.
Circularity Check
No circularity: SPOC's reported gains are empirical measurements against external benchmarks, not derivations that reduce to their own training inputs.
full rationale
SPOC is an empirical post-training and evaluation paper; there is no claimed first-principles derivation whose conclusion is an input in disguise. The Pair-SFT stage (Section 3.2) generates verification messages by prompting the base model with a correct sampled answer as reference, but this is standard supervised data construction, and at inference the correct answer is absent, so the reported MATH500/AMC23/AIME24 accuracies are not forced by construction. The RL rewards (Section 3.1, Figure 3a) are rule-based labels on the model's own rollouts; measuring the trained policy on held-out benchmarks is not equivalent to fitting a parameter to those benchmarks. The EFG/Nash-equilibrium discussion is interpretive: the payoff table does imply that C/C is the unique Nash equilibrium, but that game-theoretic fact does not entail any particular benchmark accuracy. The only self-citations (CGPO in Section 4.1, AutoPRM in Section 1) are implementation/related-work references and are not load-bearing. The skeptic's observation that most of the headline gain is already present at turn 1 is a confound/attribution concern about which component causes the improvement, not circularity: the measured SPOC-vs-base delta is not algebraically equal to any fitted parameter or training label. The explicit reflection instruction in the Figure 7 prompt may weaken the word 'spontaneous', but that is a construct-validity issue, not a circular reduction. No circular step is therefore identified.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (1)
- Pair-SFT positive/negative data balance ratio =
balanced to approximately the same scale (exact ratio not reported)
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Rule-based final-answer checking is a valid reward signal for both solution and verification correctness.
- domain assumption The base model's own correct and incorrect outputs can bootstrap a reliable verifier via Pair-SFT.
- standard math The KL-regularized RL objective has a closed-form optimum and the standard policy optimization algorithms converge.
- domain assumption The extensive-form game formulation with parameter sharing is an appropriate abstraction of the alternating solution-verification process.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Boosting LLM Reasoning via Spontaneous Self-Correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A2LFHJZR
@misc{pith2026250606923,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Boosting LLM Reasoning via Spontaneous Self-Correction},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A2LFHJZR}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06923}
}
read the original abstract
While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success on a broad range of tasks, math reasoning remains a challenging one. One of the approaches for improving math reasoning is self-correction, which designs self-improving loops to let the model correct its own mistakes. However, existing self-correction approaches treat corrections as standalone post-generation refinements, relying on extra prompt and system designs to elicit self-corrections, instead of performing real-time, spontaneous self-corrections in a single pass. To address this, we propose SPOC, a spontaneous self-correction approach that enables LLMs to generate interleaved solutions and verifications in a single inference pass, with generation dynamically terminated based on verification outcomes, thereby effectively scaling inference time compute. SPOC considers a multi-agent perspective by assigning dual roles -- solution proposer and verifier -- to the same model. We adopt a simple yet effective approach to generate synthetic data for fine-tuning, enabling the model to develop capabilities for self-verification and multi-agent collaboration. We further improve its solution proposal and verification accuracy through online reinforcement learning. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that SPOC significantly improves performance. Notably, SPOC boosts the accuracy of Llama-3.1-8B and 70B Instruct models, achieving gains of 8.8% and 11.6% on MATH500, 10.0% and 20.0% on AMC23, and 3.3% and 6.7% on AIME24, respectively.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
ReSum: Synergizing LLM Reasoning and Summarization with Reinforcement Learning
ReSum trains LLMs via RLVR to self-summarize reasoning trajectories, yielding 4% average performance gains and 18.6% shorter rollouts through contrastive rollout branches.
-
SVR-R1: Bootstrapping Multi-modal Reasoning with Self-verification in Reinforcement Learning
Integrating binary self-verification into multi-turn GRPO rollouts raises VLM multimodal reasoning accuracy over matched GRPO baselines while the model learns to need fewer rethinks.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Back to basics: Revisiting reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms
Arash Ahmadian, Chris Cremer, Matthias Gallé, Marzieh Fadaee, Julia Kreutzer, Olivier Pietquin, Ahmet Üstün, and Sara Hooker. Back to basics: Revisiting reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14740,
-
[3]
Zhaorun Chen, Zhuokai Zhao, Zhihong Zhu, Ruiqi Zhang, Xiang Li, Bhiksha Raj, and Huaxiu Yao. Autoprm: Automating procedural supervision for multi-step reasoning via controllable question decomposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11452,
-
[4]
Hanze Dong, Wei Xiong, Deepanshu Goyal, Yihan Zhang, Winnie Chow, Rui Pan, Shizhe Diao, Jipeng Zhang, Kashun Shum, and Tong Zhang. Raft: Reward ranked finetuning for generative foundation model alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06767,
-
[6]
Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,
-
[8]
Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874,
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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874,
-
[10]
Training language models to self-correct via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12917,
Aviral Kumar, Vincent Zhuang, Rishabh Agarwal, Yi Su, John D Co-Reyes, Avi Singh, Kate Baumli, Shariq Iqbal, Colton Bishop, Rebecca Roelofs, et al. Training language models to self-correct via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12917,
-
[11]
Tian Liang, Zhiwei He, Wenxiang Jiao, Xing Wang, Yan Wang, Rui Wang, Yujiu Yang, Shuming Shi, and Zhaopeng Tu. Encouraging divergent thinking in large language models through multi-agent debate.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19118,
-
[12]
Let’s verify step by step.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050,
Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050,
Show all 44 references
-
[13]
S2 r: Teaching llms to self-verify and self-correct via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12853,
Ruotian Ma, Peisong Wang, Cheng Liu, Xingyan Liu, Jiaqi Chen, Bang Zhang, Xin Zhou, Nan Du, and Jia Li. S2 r: Teaching llms to self-verify and self-correct via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12853,
-
[14]
Deepseek-r1 thoughtology: Let’s think about llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07128,
Sara Vera Marjanović, Arkil Patel, Vaibhav Adlakha, Milad Aghajohari, Parishad BehnamGhader, Mehar Bhatia, Aditi Khandelwal, Austin Kraft, Benno Krojer, Xing Han Lù, et al. Deepseek-r1 thoughtology: Let’s think about llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07128,
-
[15]
Orca-math: Unlocking the potential of slms in grade school math.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14830,
Arindam Mitra, Hamed Khanpour, Corby Rosset, and Ahmed Awadallah. Orca-math: Unlocking the potential of slms in grade school math.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14830,
-
[16]
Malt: Improving reasoning with multi-agent llm training
Sumeet Ramesh Motwani, Chandler Smith, Rocktim Jyoti Das, Rafael Rafailov, Ivan Laptev, Philip HS Torr, Fabio Pizzati, Ronald Clark, and Christian Schroeder de Witt. Malt: Improving reasoning with multi-agent llm training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01928,
-
[18]
Recursive introspection: Teaching language model agents how to self-improve.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18219,
Yuxiao Qu, Tianjun Zhang, Naman Garg, and Aviral Kumar. Recursive introspection: Teaching language model agents how to self-improve.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18219,
-
[19]
Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05802,
William Saunders, Catherine Yeh, Jeff Wu, Steven Bills, Long Ouyang, Jonathan Ward, and Jan Leike. Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05802,
-
[23]
Generating sequences by learning to self-correct.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00053,
Sean Welleck, Ximing Lu, Peter West, Faeze Brahman, Tianxiao Shen, Daniel Khashabi, and Yejin Choi. Generating sequences by learning to self-correct.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00053,
-
[24]
Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155,
Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, et al. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155,
-
[25]
Towards system 2 reasoning in llms: Learning how to think with meta chain-of-though.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04682,
Violet Xiang, Charlie Snell, Kanishk Gandhi, Alon Albalak, Anikait Singh, Chase Blagden, Duy Phung, Rafael Rafailov, Nathan Lile, Dakota Mahan, et al. Towards system 2 reasoning in llms: Learning how to think with meta chain-of-though.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04682,
-
[26]
Iterative preference learning from human feedback: Bridging theory and practice for rlhf under kl-constraint.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11456,
Wei Xiong, Hanze Dong, Chenlu Ye, Ziqi Wang, Han Zhong, Heng Ji, Nan Jiang, and Tong Zhang. Iterative preference learning from human feedback: Bridging theory and practice for rlhf under kl-constraint.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11456,
-
[27]
Self-rewarding correction for mathematical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19613,
Wei Xiong, Hanning Zhang, Chenlu Ye, Lichang Chen, Nan Jiang, and Tong Zhang. Self-rewarding correction for mathematical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19613,
-
[28]
The perfect blend: Redefining rlhf with mixture of judges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20370,
Tengyu Xu, Eryk Helenowski, Karthik Abinav Sankararaman, Di Jin, Kaiyan Peng, Eric Han, Shaoliang Nie, Chen Zhu, Hejia Zhang, Wenxuan Zhou, et al. The perfect blend: Redefining rlhf with mixture of judges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20370,
-
[29]
11 An Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bofei Gao, Bowen Yu, Chengpeng Li, Dayiheng Liu, Jianhong Tu, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, et al. Qwen2. 5-math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via self-improvement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12122,
-
[30]
Physics of language models: Part 2.2, how to learn from mistakes on grade-school math problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16293,
Tian Ye, Zicheng Xu, Yuanzhi Li, and Zeyuan Allen-Zhu. Physics of language models: Part 2.2, how to learn from mistakes on grade-school math problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16293,
-
[31]
Generative verifiers: Reward modeling as next-token prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15240,
Lunjun Zhang, Arian Hosseini, Hritik Bansal, Mehran Kazemi, Aviral Kumar, and Rishabh Agarwal. Generative verifiers: Reward modeling as next-token prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15240,
-
[32]
Critic-cot: Boosting the reasoning abilities of large language model via chain-of-thoughts critic.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16326,
Xin Zheng, Jie Lou, Boxi Cao, Xueru Wen, Yuqiu Ji, Hongyu Lin, Yaojie Lu, Xianpei Han, Debing Zhang, and Le Sun. Critic-cot: Boosting the reasoning abilities of large language model via chain-of-thoughts critic.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16326,
-
[33]
12 Appendix A Algorithms Algorithm 2Pair-SFT Data Construction 1: Inputs:Question-answer dataset D = X × Y= {(xi, y∗ i )}N i=1, policy model π0, number of questions N, number of single-turn rollouts per question K, rule-based solution correctness reward function rsl(y, y∗) ∈ {...
2023
-
[34]
This test set spans five difficulty levels and seven subjects, which promotes a comprehensive evaluation of reasoning capabilities
evaluation set. This test set spans five difficulty levels and seven subjects, which promotes a comprehensive evaluation of reasoning capabilities. • AMC23. A dataset of 40 problems from the American Mathematics Contest 12 (AMC12) 2023 (AI-MO, 2023). This test set consists of ...
2023
-
[35]
I think the solution is correct
algorithm prompts the current policy to generate multiple responses for each prompt, and the best-of-N (BoN) response is used to perform a one-step SFT update on the policy. 17 E Prompts Llama 3.1 COT query template User: Solve the following math problem efficiently and clearl...
2024
-
[37]
However, since \( a < b < 2009 \), \( a \) cannot be
2009
-
[38]
## Step 4: Verify if \( a = 1 \) satisfies the conditions of the problem
Thus, the only possible value for \( a \) is 1, but we need to verify if this satisfies the condition of forming a geometric sequence with an integer ratio. ## Step 4: Verify if \( a = 1 \) satisfies the conditions of the problem. If \( a = 1 \), then \( b = ar = 1 \cdot r = r...
2009
-
[39]
This means \( r^2 = 2009 \) is not possible for any integer \( r \) since 2009 is not a perfect square
However, since 2009 is prime, the only integer divisors of 2009 are 1 and 2009 itself. This means \( r^2 = 2009 \) is not possible for any integer \( r \) since 2009 is not a perfect square. The only other option is \( r^2 = 1 \), which gives \( r = 1 \) or \( r = -1 \), but \...
2009
-
[40]
Thus, \( b = 1 \) is not possible since \( a < b \), implying \( a \) would have to be less than 1, which is not possible for positive integers
21 The factors of 2009 are 1 and 2009 (since 2009 is prime), but \( b \) cannot be 2009 because \( b < 2009 \). Thus, \( b = 1 \) is not possible since \( a < b \), implying \( a \) would have to be less than 1, which is not possible for positive integers. We need to find a fa...
2009
-
[41]
However, since 2009 is prime, its only factors are 1 and
2009
-
[42]
For \( a, b, 2009 \) to be in a geometric sequence, we must have \( b = ar \) and \( 2009 = ar^2 \). Given \( r \) is an integer and \( a < b < 2009 \), we examine the possibility of \( r = 2009 \) and \( a = 1 \), but this does not fit because \( b \) would then be 2009, viol...
2009
-
[43]
Thus, \( r^2 = 1 \), giving \( r = 1 \) or \( r = -1 \)
\( r^2 = 2009 \) is not possible for integer \( r \) since 2009 is not a perfect square. Thus, \( r^2 = 1 \), giving \( r = 1 \) or \( r = -1 \). However, \( r = 1 \) does not yield a geometric sequence with distinct terms, and \( r = -1 \) would imply \( b = -a \), which does...
2009
-
[44]
Therefore, the final answer is: \boxed{1}<|eom_id|> <reflection> The error lies in the incorrect assumption that \( r^2 \) must directly divide 2009, leading to a flawed analysis of possible values for \( r \) and \( a \). This mistake results in an incorrect conclusion that \...
2009
-
[1994]
Refiner: Reasoning feedback on intermediate representations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01904,
Debjit Paul, Mete Ismayilzada, Maxime Peyrard, Beatriz Borges, Antoine Bosselut, Robert West, and Boi Faltings. Refiner: Reasoning feedback on intermediate representations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01904,
-
[2008]
Mastering chess and shogi by self-play with a general reinforcement learning algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01815,
David Silver, Thomas Hubert, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Matthew Lai, Arthur Guez, Marc Lanctot, Laurent Sifre, Dharshan Kumaran, Thore Graepel, et al. Mastering chess and shogi by self-play with a general reinforcement learning algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01815,
-
[2009]
To find the factors of 2009, we can start by checking for its prime factorization
## Step 3: Find the factors of 2009 to determine possible values for \( a \). To find the factors of 2009, we can start by checking for its prime factorization. 2009 is a prime number, which means its only factors are 1 and
2009
-
[2018]
Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530,
Gemini Team, Petko Georgiev, Ving Ian Lei, Ryan Burnell, Libin Bai, Anmol Gulati, Garrett Tanzer, Damien Vincent, Zhufeng Pan, Shibo Wang, et al. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530,
-
[2021]
Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01798,
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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01798,
-
[2022]
Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300,
Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300,
-
[2023]
The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783,
Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783,
-
[2024]
Rl4f: Generating natural language feedback with reinforcement learning for repairing model outputs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08844,
Afra Feyza Akyürek, Ekin Akyürek, Aman Madaan, Ashwin Kalyan, Peter Clark, Derry Wijaya, and Niket Tandon. Rl4f: Generating natural language feedback with reinforcement learning for repairing model outputs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08844,
-
[2025]
Glore: When, where, and how to improve llm reasoning via global and local refinements
Alex Havrilla, Sharath Raparthy, Christoforus 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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10963,
Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.