pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.18851 · v1 · pith:E2ZOQ5GKnew · submitted 2026-05-13 · 💻 cs.LG

STRIDE: Learnable Stepwise Language Feedback for LLM Reasoning

Junjie Zhang , Guozheng Ma , Shunyu Liu , Zetian Hu , Yongcheng Jing , Ting-En Lin , Yongbin Li , Dacheng Tao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 20:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG
keywords STRIDEstepwise language feedbackgenerative verifierLLM reasoningoutcome-based rewardstrajectory redirectionprocess supervisionreinforcement learning for LLMs
0
0 comments X

The pith

STRIDE enables LLMs to improve reasoning by co-training a verifier that generates language critiques from outcome rewards alone.

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

The paper proposes STRIDE, a framework that co-trains a generator model and a generative verifier using only final outcome rewards to produce stepwise language feedback. This feedback localizes errors in reasoning steps and suggests corrections, allowing the model to redirect its trajectory mid-reasoning. By avoiding the need for costly human annotations or fixed external critics, it provides richer guidance than simple scalar scores. The method ensures that policy improvements remain safe even if the verifier is imperfect. Results show better performance than existing approaches on reasoning tasks and success on problems that other methods cannot solve at all.

Core claim

STRIDE shifts process supervision from scalar rewards to learnable stepwise language feedback by co-training a generator and a generative verifier using only outcome-based rewards, with the verifier's critiques localizing and explaining failures to enable trajectory redirection at intermediate steps, guaranteeing harmless policy improvement.

What carries the argument

The trajectory redirection mechanism driven by jointly trained generative verifier's stepwise language critiques, which provide semantic guidance for correcting intermediate decisions.

If this is right

  • Outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on diverse reasoning benchmarks.
  • Achieves breakthroughs on zero-pass-rate problems where scalar methods provide no learning signal.
  • Delivers sustained policy improvement through jointly aligned verifier training without external annotations.
  • Enables redirection of reasoning trajectories toward alternative decisions at intermediate steps.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar co-training could extend to other domains requiring step-by-step planning, such as code generation or mathematical proofs.
  • The approach might allow scaling process supervision to larger models or more complex tasks without increasing annotation costs.
  • Integrating this with existing RL methods could further enhance the quality of the language critiques over time.

Load-bearing premise

Jointly training the generator and generative verifier on outcome-based rewards alone produces sufficiently accurate and aligned stepwise language critiques for effective redirection.

What would settle it

If experiments show that replacing the learned verifier with a frozen one eliminates the performance gains, or if manual inspection reveals the critiques often misidentify correct steps as errors, the central claim would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18851 by Dacheng Tao, Guozheng Ma, Junjie Zhang, Shunyu Liu, Ting-En Lin, Yongbin Li, Yongcheng Jing, Zetian Hu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the STRIDE framework. STRIDE shifts the process supervision paradigm from unidimensional scalar rewards to high-bandwidth in-context guidance. Phase I builds basic reasoning capabilities through outcome-based GRPO. Phase II optimizes a generative verifier to decompose terminal rewards into step-level linguistic feedback vt. Phase III leverages the verifier to localize the First Point of Failure… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: STRIDE training dynamics. (a) Fair Comparison Validated: STRIDE and TANGO share near-identical verifier F1 trajectories, confirming the performance gap originates from how feedback is utilized (language guidance vs. scalar reward). (b) Continuous Breakthrough on Hard Problems: The declining redirection error rate shows the generator progressively conquers previously unsolvable instances, with the verifier … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: b further confirms that co￾training the verifier with the generator is crucial: the fixed-verifier variant un￾derperforms co-trained STRIDE, as a frozen verifier cannot adapt its lo￾calization to the generator’s evolving error distribution. To directly characterize verifier relia￾bility, Figure 3c tracks step-level qual￾ity over training using GPT-5 as an automatic judge, measuring error localization accur… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent advances in Reinforcement Learning (RL) have underscored its potential for incentivizing reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, existing step-level efforts suffer from costly annotations that limit domain coverage, while scalar scores further impose an information bottleneck, offering insufficient semantic bandwidth to improve intermediate decisions. Alternative language-critique approaches, which rely on frozen or external critics, provide richer textual feedback but lack the scalability needed for sustained policy improvement. In this work, we propose language-driven stepwise trajectory redirection, termed as STRIDE, a novel training framework that shifts process supervision from scalar rewards to learnable stepwise language feedback. Specifically, we co-train a generator and a generative verifier using only outcome-based rewards, eliminating external annotations, while delivering sustained policy improvement through jointly aligned verifier training. The verifier's stepwise language critiques explicitly localize and explain failures, enabling the generator to redirect reasoning trajectories at intermediate steps toward alternative decisions. The trajectory redirection design guarantees harmless policy improvement, even under noisy or suboptimal verifier feedback. Experiments on diverse reasoning benchmarks show that STRIDE significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, as well as achieving breakthroughs on zero-pass-rate problems where scalar methods yield no learning signal in our ablation studies, demonstrating the effectiveness of learnable stepwise language feedback for enhancing LLM reasoning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes STRIDE, a training framework that co-trains a generator LLM and a generative verifier solely on outcome-based rewards to produce stepwise language critiques. These critiques enable trajectory redirection at intermediate reasoning steps, with the design claimed to guarantee harmless policy improvement. Experiments reportedly show significant outperformance over state-of-the-art baselines on diverse reasoning benchmarks and breakthroughs on zero-pass-rate problems where scalar reward methods provide no learning signal.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work would be significant for scaling process supervision in LLM reasoning without costly annotations or frozen external critics. The joint training of generator and verifier on outcome signals alone, combined with language feedback for redirection, addresses information bottlenecks in scalar RL and could enable sustained improvement on hard reasoning tasks.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (Experiments) and ablation studies: The reported breakthroughs on zero-pass-rate problems and outperformance claims lack details on baseline implementations, number of random seeds, statistical significance tests, or controls for trajectory redirection verification. Without these, it is unclear whether the gains are attributable to accurate step-level localization by the verifier or to other factors.
  2. [Method] Method section on joint training: The verifier is trained jointly with the generator on the same outcome-based reward signal, yet no independent evaluation (e.g., human-annotated critique accuracy or external benchmark for failure localization) is provided to confirm that the generated language critiques correctly identify causal intermediate errors rather than producing generic or post-hoc feedback.
  3. [Trajectory redirection] Trajectory redirection mechanism: The claim that redirection guarantees harmless improvement even under noisy verifier feedback is central but rests on an untested assumption; the manuscript does not report metrics showing that redirected trajectories avoid introducing new errors or that the policy improvement remains stable when verifier critiques are suboptimal.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Notation for the generative verifier and redirection operator should be defined more clearly in the method section to avoid ambiguity when comparing to prior scalar RL baselines.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for benchmark results should include error bars or confidence intervals to support the outperformance claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper to incorporate additional details, evaluations, and analyses as suggested. These changes will help clarify the experimental rigor and strengthen the validation of our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Experiments) and ablation studies: The reported breakthroughs on zero-pass-rate problems and outperformance claims lack details on baseline implementations, number of random seeds, statistical significance tests, or controls for trajectory redirection verification. Without these, it is unclear whether the gains are attributable to accurate step-level localization by the verifier or to other factors.

    Authors: We agree that more experimental details are needed to support the claims. In the revised manuscript, we will expand §4 with full specifications of all baseline implementations (including hyperparameters, training procedures, and any modifications for comparability). Results will be reported as means over 5 random seeds with standard deviations. We will add statistical significance testing (paired t-tests with p-values) for key comparisons. New ablation controls will be included to verify trajectory redirection, such as variants without redirection or with random critiques, to better attribute gains to step-level localization by the verifier. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] Method section on joint training: The verifier is trained jointly with the generator on the same outcome-based reward signal, yet no independent evaluation (e.g., human-annotated critique accuracy or external benchmark for failure localization) is provided to confirm that the generated language critiques correctly identify causal intermediate errors rather than producing generic or post-hoc feedback.

    Authors: This is a fair point on the need for direct validation of the verifier. While joint training on outcome rewards aligns the components, we will add an independent evaluation section in the revision. This will include a human annotation study on critique accuracy for causal error identification on held-out examples, plus comparisons to external failure localization benchmarks. These additions will demonstrate that the critiques are specific and causal rather than generic or post-hoc. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Trajectory redirection] Trajectory redirection mechanism: The claim that redirection guarantees harmless improvement even under noisy verifier feedback is central but rests on an untested assumption; the manuscript does not report metrics showing that redirected trajectories avoid introducing new errors or that the policy improvement remains stable when verifier critiques are suboptimal.

    Authors: We thank the referee for emphasizing this central claim. The redirection mechanism is designed to ensure harmless improvement by conditioning on detected failures and alternative paths. To address the empirical gap, the revised manuscript will include new experiments that inject controlled noise into verifier feedback and report metrics on new error introduction rates in redirected trajectories, along with stability of policy improvement. These results will provide direct support for robustness under suboptimal feedback. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper presents STRIDE as an empirical training framework that co-trains a generator and generative verifier solely on outcome-based rewards, then validates sustained policy improvement and breakthroughs on zero-pass-rate problems via experiments on external reasoning benchmarks. No load-bearing claim reduces by construction to its inputs: there are no self-definitional equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains that substitute for independent justification. The trajectory-redirection guarantee and alignment claims are presented as design properties whose effectiveness is measured against separate benchmarks rather than derived tautologically from the training signal itself. This is the standard non-circular outcome for a method paper whose central results rest on reproducible external evaluation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

The framework rests on the assumption that outcome rewards suffice to align a generative verifier with useful critiques and that redirection prevents harm from noisy feedback; no explicit free parameters are named, but the generative verifier and redirection mechanism are introduced constructs without independent falsifiable evidence outside the training loop.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Outcome-based rewards alone can train both generator and verifier to produce effective stepwise language critiques
    Invoked to eliminate external annotations while claiming sustained improvement.
invented entities (2)
  • Generative verifier no independent evidence
    purpose: Produces stepwise language critiques that localize failures
    New component co-trained with the generator; no independent evidence of critique accuracy provided.
  • Trajectory redirection no independent evidence
    purpose: Allows intermediate correction of reasoning paths while guaranteeing harmless improvement
    Core design element claimed to protect against suboptimal verifier output.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5774 in / 1307 out tokens · 56327 ms · 2026-05-20T20:43:20.198775+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 17 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Deepseek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning.Nature, 645(8081):633–638, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Peiyi Wang, et al. Deepseek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning.Nature, 645(8081):633–638, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models

    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, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Let’s verify step by step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

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

    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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14275, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Process Reinforcement through Implicit Rewards

    Ganqu Cui, Lifan Yuan, Zefan Wang, Hanbin Wang, Wendi Li, Bingxiang He, Yuchen Fan, Tianyu Yu, Qixin Xu, Weize Chen, et al. Process reinforcement through implicit rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01456, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoning

    Amrith Setlur, Chirag Nagpal, Adam Fisch, Xinyang Geng, Jacob Eisenstein, Rishabh Agarwal, Alekh Agarwal, Jonathan Berant, and Aviral Kumar. Rewarding progress: Scaling automated process verifiers for llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08146, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03106 , year=

    Xiaoying Zhang, Hao Sun, Yipeng Zhang, Kaituo Feng, Chaochao Lu, Chao Yang, and Helen Meng. Critique-grpo: Advancing llm reasoning with natural language and numerical feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03106, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Generating sequences by learning to self-correct.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00053, 2022

    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, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Enhancing llm reasoning via critique models with test-time and training-time supervision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16579, 2024

    Zhiheng Xi, Dingwen Yang, Jixuan Huang, Jiafu Tang, Guanyu Li, Yiwen Ding, Wei He, Boyang Hong, Shihan Do, Wenyu Zhan, et al. Enhancing llm reasoning via critique models with test-time and training-time supervision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16579, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Lemma: Learning from errors for mathematical advancement in llms

    Zhuoshi Pan, Yu Li, Honglin Lin, Qizhi Pei, Zinan Tang, Wei Wu, Chenlin Ming, H Vicky Zhao, Conghui He, and Lijun Wu. Lemma: Learning from errors for mathematical advancement in llms. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pages 11615–11639, 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Step back to leap forward: Self-backtracking for boosting reasoning of language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04404, 2025

    Xiao-Wen Yang, Xuan-Yi Zhu, Wen-Da Wei, Ding-Chu Zhang, Jie-Jing Shao, Zhi Zhou, Lan- Zhe Guo, and Yu-Feng Li. Step back to leap forward: Self-backtracking for boosting reasoning of language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04404, 2025. 11

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Boning, and Dina Katabi

    Kaiwen Zha, Zhengqi Gao, Maohao Shen, Zhang-Wei Hong, Duane S. Boning, and Dina Katabi. Rl tango: Reinforcing generator and verifier together for language reasoning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale

    Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, Yu Yue, Tiantian Fan, Gaohong Liu, Lingjun Liu, Xin Liu, et al. Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14476, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Comas: Co-evolving multi-agent systems via interaction rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08529, 2025

    Xiangyuan Xue, Yifan Zhou, Guibin Zhang, Zaibin Zhang, Yijiang Li, Chen Zhang, Zhenfei Yin, Philip Torr, Wanli Ouyang, and Lei Bai. Comas: Co-evolving multi-agent systems via interaction rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08529, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Process reward models that think

    Muhammad Khalifa, Rishabh Agarwal, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Jaekyeom Kim, Hao Peng, Moontae Lee, Honglak Lee, and Lu Wang. Process reward models that think.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16828, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    R3L: Reflect-then-retry reinforcement learning with language-guided exploration, pivotal credit, and positive amplification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03715, 2026

    Weijie Shi, Yanxi Chen, Zexi Li, Xuchen Pan, Yuchang Sun, Jiajie Xu, Xiaofang Zhou, and Yaliang Li. R3L: Reflect-then-retry reinforcement learning with language-guided exploration, pivotal credit, and positive amplification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03715, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Training language models to self- correct via reinforcement learning

    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. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Step-level value preference optimiza- tion for mathematical reasoning

    Guoxin Chen, Minpeng Liao, Chengxi Li, and Kai Fan. Step-level value preference optimiza- tion for mathematical reasoning. InConference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2024

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations

    Peiyi Wang, Lei Li, Zhihong Shao, Runxin Xu, Damai Dai, Yifei Li, Deli Chen, Yu Wu, and Zhifang Sui. Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations. InAnnual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 9426–9439, 2024

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Versaprm: Multi-domain process reward model via synthetic reasoning data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06737, 2025

    Thomas Zeng, Shuibai Zhang, Shutong Wu, Christian Classen, Daewon Chae, Ethan Ewer, Minjae Lee, Heeju Kim, Wonjun Kang, Jackson Kunde, et al. Versaprm: Multi-domain process reward model via synthetic reasoning data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06737, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    motivation

    Junjie Zhang, Guozheng Ma, Shunyu Liu, Haoyu Wang, Jiaxing Huang, Ting-En Lin, Fei Huang, Yongbin Li, and Dacheng Tao. A simple" motivation" can enhance reinforcement finetuning of large reasoning models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

    work page 2026

  25. [25]

    Critique-out-loud reward models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11791, 2024

    Zachary Ankner, Mansheej Paul, Brandon Cui, Jonathan D Chang, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. Critique-out-loud reward models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11791, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet

    Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Adams Wei Yu, Xiny- ing Song, and Denny Zhou. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Re- flexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Re- flexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Self-edit: Fault-aware code editor for code generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04087, 2023

    Kechi Zhang, Zhuo Li, Jia Li, Ge Li, and Zhi Jin. Self-edit: Fault-aware code editor for code generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04087, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedback

    Harrison Lee, Samrat Phatale, Hassan Mansoor, Thomas Mesnard, Johan Ferret, Kellie Lu, Colton Bishop, Ethan Hall, Victor Carbune, Abhinav Rastogi, et al. Rlaif vs. rlhf: Scaling rein- forcement learning from human feedback with ai feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00267, 2023. 12

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Pag: Multi-turn reinforced llm self-correction with policy as generative verifier

    Yuhua Jiang, Yuwen Xiong, Yufeng Yuan, Chao Xin, Wenyuan Xu, Yu Yue, Qianchuan Zhao, and Lin Yan. Pag: Multi-turn reinforced llm self-correction with policy as generative verifier. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10406, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Teaching language models to critique via reinforcement learning

    Zhihui Xie, Jie Chen, Liyu Chen, Weichao Mao, Jingjing Xu, and Lingpeng Kong. Teaching language models to critique via reinforcement learning. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2025

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Trust, but verify: A self-verification ap- proach to reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards

    Xiaoyuan Liu, Tian Liang, Zhiwei He, Jiahao Xu, Wenxuan Wang, Pinjia He, Zhaopeng Tu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. Trust, but verify: A self-verification approach to reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13445, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Supervised optimism correction: Be confident when llms are sure.Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Findings, 2025

    Junjie Zhang, Rushuai Yang, Shunyu Liu, Ting-En Lin, Fei Huang, Yi Chen, Yongbin Li, and Dacheng Tao. Supervised optimism correction: Be confident when llms are sure.Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Findings, 2025

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Scaling LLM test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters for reasoning

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling LLM test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters for reasoning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Swe-search: Enhancing software agents with monte carlo tree search and iterative refinement

    Antonis Antoniades, Albert Örwall, Kexun Zhang, Yuxi Xie, Anirudh Goyal, and William Wang. Swe-search: Enhancing software agents with monte carlo tree search and iterative refinement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20285, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning

    Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah Goodman. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Quiet-STaR: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Think Before Speaking

    Eric Zelikman, Georges Harik, Yijia Shao, Varuna Jayasiri, Nick Haber, and Noah D Goodman. Quiet-star: Language models can teach themselves to think before speaking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09629, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    DOTS: Learning to reason dynamically in LLMs via optimal reasoning trajectories search

    Murong Yue, Wenlin Yao, Haitao Mi, Dian Yu, Ziyu Yao, and Dong Yu. DOTS: Learning to reason dynamically in LLMs via optimal reasoning trajectories search. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    Re-reading improves reasoning in large language models

    Xiaohan Xu, Chongyang Tao, Tao Shen, Can Xu, Hongbo Xu, Guodong Long, Jian-Guang Lou, and Shuai Ma. Re-reading improves reasoning in large language models. InConference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2024

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Re2: Un- locking LLM reasoning via reinforcement learning with re-solving

    Pinzheng Wang, Shuli Xu, Juntao Li, Yu Luo, Dong Li, Jianye Hao, and Min Zhang. Re2: Un- locking LLM reasoning via reinforcement learning with re-solving. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

    work page 2026

  41. [41]

    Learning to Reason under Off-Policy Guidance

    Jianhao Yan, Yafu Li, Zican Hu, Zhi Wang, Ganqu Cui, Xiaoye Qu, Yu Cheng, and Yue Zhang. Learning to reason under off-policy guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14945, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement

    An Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bofei Gao, Bowen Yu, Chengpeng Li, Dayiheng Liu, Jianhong Tu, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Keming Lu, Mingfeng Xue, Runji Lin, Tianyu Liu, Xingzhang Ren, and Zhenru Zhang. Qwen2.5-math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via self-improvement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12122, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Qwen2.5 Technical Report

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. Qwen2.5 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    The Llama 3 Herd of Models

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Aime 2024, 2024

    AI-MO. Aime 2024, 2024

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Aime 2025, 2025

    OpenCompass. Aime 2025, 2025

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Amc 2023, 2024

    AI-MO. Amc 2023, 2024. 13

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems

    Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Leng Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, et al. Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems. InAnnual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Boardgameqa: A dataset for natural language reasoning with contradic- tory information

    Mehran Kazemi, Quan Yuan, Deepti Bhatia, Najoung Kim, Xin Xu, Vaiva Imbrasaite, and Deepak Ramachandran. Boardgameqa: A dataset for natural language reasoning with contradic- tory information. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    CRUXEval: A Benchmark for Code Reasoning, Understanding and Execution

    Alex Gu, Baptiste Rozière, Hugh Leather, Armando Solar-Lezama, Gabriel Synnaeve, and Sida I Wang. Cruxeval: A benchmark for code reasoning, understanding and execution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03065, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies

    Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies. In Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics. MIT Press, 2021

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    Tablebench: A comprehensive and complex benchmark for table question answering

    Xianjie Wu, Jian Yang, Linzheng Chai, Ge Zhang, Jiaheng Liu, Xeron Du, Di Liang, Daixin Shu, Xianfu Cheng, Tianzhen Sun, et al. Tablebench: A comprehensive and complex benchmark for table question answering. InAAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2025

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    rStar-Math: Small LLMs Can Master Math Reasoning with Self-Evolved Deep Thinking

    Xinyu Guan, Li Lyna Zhang, Yifei Liu, Ning Shang, Youran Sun, Yi Zhu, Fan Yang, and Mao Yang. rstar-math: Small llms can master math reasoning with self-evolved deep thinking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04519, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02508 , year=

    Maohao Shen, Guangtao Zeng, Zhenting Qi, Zhang-Wei Hong, Zhenfang Chen, Wei Lu, Gregory Wornell, Subhro Das, David Cox, and Chuang Gan. Satori: Reinforcement learning with chain-of-action-thought enhances llm reasoning via autoregressive search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02508, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    GPT-4o System Card

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Claude 3.5 sonnet, 2024

    Anthropic. Claude 3.5 sonnet, 2024

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    OpenAI o1 System Card

    Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Openmathinstruct-2: Accelerating ai for math with massive open-source instruction data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01560, 2024

    Shubham Toshniwal, Wei Du, Ivan Moshkov, Branislav Kisacanin, Alexan Ayrapetyan, and Igor Gitman. Openmathinstruct-2: Accelerating ai for math with massive open-source instruction data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01560, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Numinamath 72b cot, 2024

    Edward Beeching, Shengyi Costa Huang, Albert Jiang, Jia Li, Benjamin Lipkin, Zihan Qina, Kashif Rasul, Ziju Shen, Roman Soletskyi, and Lewis Tunstall. Numinamath 72b cot, 2024

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    Qwq: Reflect deeply on the boundaries of the unknown, 2024

    Qwen Team. Qwq: Reflect deeply on the boundaries of the unknown, 2024

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    John Wiley & Sons, 1999

    Thomas M Cover.Elements of information theory. John Wiley & Sons, 1999

    work page 1999

  62. [62]

    HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework

    Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19256, 2024. 14 Appendix Table of Contents A STRIDE Interleaved Training Algorithm 16 B Formal Preliminaries 16 B.1 Generator-Verifier Framework . . . . . . . . . ....

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Start with a<think>section containing your step-by-step reasoning

    work page

  64. [64]

    Inside <think>, each distinct logical step MUST be enclosed in its own <step> </step>tags

    work page

  65. [65]

    The factors of +4 summing to −5 must both be negative: (−4)×(−1) = 4 and (−4) + (−1) =−5 . Using+1is a sign error; the correct factoring is(u−4)(u−1) = 0

    After <think>, provide the final answer within <answer> </answer> tags, using the \boxed{} format. ... [Detailed Example Omitted] ... User: prompt Assistant: C.2 Phase II Generative Verification Template The verifier Vϕ is optimized in Phase II to act as a Contextual Navigator. It decomposes the terminal outcome signal into high-bandwidth linguistic feedb...

    work page

  66. [66]

    The correct simplification givesx=−1± √

    work page

  67. [67]

    Final Answer:x=−1± √ 6 Status: SUCCESS Corrects the radical simplification error, but retains the algebraically heavy expansion from Step 1

    ” 22 Path A: Rectification fromt ∗=3(FPF correction) •<step 3’>x= −2± √ 24 2 = −2±2 √ 6 2 =−1± √ 6. Final Answer:x=−1± √ 6 Status: SUCCESS Corrects the radical simplification error, but retains the algebraically heavy expansion from Step 1. Path B: Exploration fromt=1(avoiding the root cause) •<step 1’> Let m=x+ 1 . Then (x−1) =m−2 and (x+ 3) =m+ 2 , so (...

    work page